ArticlePDF Available

An exploratory survey of the experiences of homophobic bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered young people in Ireland

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

While developments have been made concerning the understanding of general bullying behaviour in Irish schools, considerably less is known about homophobic bullying. Presented here are the findings of a study into the views and perspectives of a self-selected sample of 123 lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT) secondary school-aged young people in Ireland. Findings highlight the extent to which such students experience name calling, teasing and bullying in their everyday lives. While exploratory in nature, the study indicates (i) the LGBT population is one ‘at risk’ of school bullying; (ii) homophobic bullying should be included as a matter of concern in pre-service and in-service teacher training; (iii) that homophobic bullying should be explicitly considered in school anti-bullying policy. Furthermore, from a consideration of the current level of expertise, there are grounds for optimism regarding the development of an inter-agency approach to providing resources and addressing curriculum development in this area in schools in Ireland.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by:[Minton, Stephen James]
On: 25 April 2008
Access Details: [subscription number 792214836]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Irish Educational Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100713
An exploratory survey of the experiences of homophobic
bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered young people in Ireland
Stephen James Minton
a
; Torunn Dahl
a
; Astrid Mona O' Moore
a
; Donnely Tuck
a
a
School of Education, Trinity College Dublin,
Online Publication Date: 01 June 2008
To cite this Article: Minton, Stephen James, Dahl, Torunn, Moore, Astrid Mona O'
and Tuck, Donnely (2008) 'An exploratory survey of the experiences of homophobic
bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered young people in Ireland',
Irish Educational Studies, 27:2, 177 - 191
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/03323310802021961
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323310802021961
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
An exploratory survey of the experiences of homophobic bullying among
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered young people in Ireland
Stephen James Minton*, Torunn Dahl, Astrid Mona O’ Moore, and
Donnely Tuck
School of Education, Trinity College Dublin
While developments have been made concerning the understanding of general
bullying behaviour in Irish schools, considerably less is known about homophobic
bullying. Presented here are the findings of a study into the views and perspectives
of a self-selected sample of 123 lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT)
secondary school-aged young people in Ireland. Findings highlight the extent to
which such students experience name calling, teasing and bullying in their
everyday lives. While exploratory in nature, the study indicates (i) the LGBT
population is one ‘at risk’ of school bullying; (ii) homophobic bullying should be
included as a matter of concern in pre-service and in-service teacher training; (iii)
that homophobic bullying should be explicitly considered in school anti-bullying
policy. Furthermore, from a consideration of the current level of expertise, there
are grounds for optimism regarding the development of an inter-agency approach
to providing resources and addressing curriculum development in this area in
schools in Ireland.
Keywords: bullying; homophobia; LGBT; young people; Irish schools
Introduction: bullying behaviour among young people in the Republic of Ireland
Europe-wide, the last twenty years has seen considerable advances in levels of
awareness about the incidence and typology of bullying behaviour among young
people (Smith et al. 1999; Smith 2003), and also some inroads into the methods by
which such behaviour may be countered (Smith, Pepler and Rigby 2004). Ireland is
no exception (O’ Moore, Kirkham, and Smith 1997; O’ Moore and Minton 2004).
For example, a representative nationwide survey of bullying behaviour in Irish
schools was undertaken in the period 19931994. Involving 20,442 pupils (drawn
from 10% of the primary schools and 27% of the post-primary schools in each of the
twenty-six counties), the study revealed the prevalence of bullying behaviour in Irish
schools at both primary and post-primary level with 31.3% of primary school pupils
and 15.6% of post-primary pupils reporting having been victimised within the last
term; 26.5% of primary school pupils and 14.9% of post-primary pupils reported
that they had bullied others within the last term (O’ Moore, Kirkham and Smith
1997).
More recently, Norman and his colleagues (Norman 2004; Norman and Galvin
2006; Norman, Galvin and McNamara 2006) asserted that homophobic bullying is
not simply another type of bullying, but is linked to prevailing negative attitudes
*Corresponding author. Email: mintonst@tcd.ie
ISSN 0332-3315 print/ISSN 1747-4965 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03323310802021961
http://www.informaworld.com
Irish Educational Studies
Vol. 27, No. 2, June 2008, 177191
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
towards people of non-heterosexual sexual orientation. It should be noted that prior
to Norman et al.’s recent publications, precious little quantitative data existed with
regards to the extent and nature of homophobic bullying in Irish schools.
What is known about homophobic bullying
Definitional issues
Overall, homophobia is described as ‘the fear of being labelled homosexual and the
irrational fear, dislike or hatred of gay males and lesbians’ (Blumenfeld and
Raymond 1998; cited in Norman, Galvin, and McNamara 2006: 36). In Ireland,
the most widely used definition of bullying among young people is that offered by the
Department of Education and Science (1993):
Bullying is repeated aggression, verbal, psychological or physical, conducted by an
individual or group against others.
Norman, Galvin, and McNamara (2006: 43) quote, with approval, a UK definition
of homophobic bullying, which we also find to be acceptable:
Homophobic bulling takes place where general bullying behaviour such as verbal and
physical abuse and intimidation is accompanied by or consists of the use of terms such
as gay, lesbian, queer or lezzie by perpetrators. (Warwick et al. 1997).
Some important research findings to date
Setting these definitional issues aside for the time being, it should be noted that
research has begun into homophobic bullying in earnest. Indeed, in Australia,
serious attempts to make inroads into the prevention of violence against lesbians and
gay men through legislative and educational policy provisions date back to 1990
(Mason 1993). In terms of incidence rates, a 1999 survey in the United States found
that 69% of LGBT students said they were harassed, and 14% said the harassment
was violent (Chang and Kleiner 2001).
Research in the UK suggests that although teachers are aware of both verbal and
physical homophobic bullying, the needs of lesbian and gay pupils may remain
unaddressed (Warwick et al. 2001). In a study of 307 schools throughout England
and Wales (Douglas et al. 1999) found that an ‘awareness of general bullying among
school staff was almost universal’ (Douglas et al. 1999: 53) 82% of teachers were
aware of instances of homophobic verbal bullying and 26% were aware of
homophobic physical bullying. Common reasons cited for not addressing the
problem were parental disapproval (18%), a lack of experienced staff (17%) and a
lack of policy (16%).
Thurlow (2001) looked at pejoratives used in English and Welsh secondary
schools. He found that homophobic pejoratives accounted for 10% of the 600
pejoratives generated by the secondary school pupils surveyed. However, these
pejoratives were rated much less seriously than racist pejoratives, indicating that
homophobic pejoratives were seen as more acceptable. Similarly, in Iowa, a study
among high school students recorded that the average high-school pupil hears anti-
gay epithets around 25 times per day, and that teachers who hear those words fail to
respond 97% of the time (Flannery 1999; cited in Chang and Kleiner 2001). Several
178 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
researchers have pointed out that name-calling is a very frequent form of
homophobic bullying, but that it is not necessarily targeted at lesbian or gay pupils.
Rather, it is used to refer to anything that does not fit the norms of masculine or
feminine, and is used to build in-group and out-group identity (Thurlow 2001;
Sharpe 2002; Warwick et al. 2001). Duncan (1999) undertook a study in four post-
primary schools in central England, via a series of interviews with year 7 (11 2 year
olds) and year 10 (1415 year olds) students. In each school, he found that a virulent
homophobia permeated from the older boys down throughout the entire school
pupil community. Conformity to the heteronormative pupil culture was rigidly
enforced through both discourse and the imminent threat of physical violence.
In Ireland, too, the use of homophobic banter among adolescent males has been
noted (Collins 1999; Mac an Ghaill 1994, Mac an Ghaill, Hanafin, and Conway
2004; O’ Moore and Minton 2004) as a cause for concern. Similarly, Mac an Ghaill,
Hanafin, and Conway (2004) draw attention to a form of ‘policing’ the boundaries of
heterosexual masculinity among Irish teenaged boys that is similar to that revealed
by Duncan’s (1999) studies in England. In their advice to young people, O’ Moore
and Minton (2004) acknowledge that while homophobic epithets are not always
meant literally (c.f. Thurlow 2001; Sharpe 2002; Warwick et al. 2001), that they are
always unacceptable. They conclude their advice on this matter: ‘Please remember
that whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual is their own business, and that
people should never be bullied or treated badly because they are homosexual’
(O’Moore and Minton 2004: 75).
Possible sub-types of homophobic bullying
Homophobic bullying, it would seem, may be divided into two sub-types. First, there
is the type of homophobic bullying that underpins the (often aggressive) hetero-
normativity of the school environment (i.e., the type described by Duncan 1999; Mac
an Ghaill 1994; Mac an Ghaill, Hanafin, and Conway 2004; Thurlow 2001 above). It
should be noted that while not targeting lesbian and gay pupils directly, it certainly
has an impact on them. A study in the United States found that lesbian and gay
young people were two to three times more likely to commit suicide than other young
people (Warwick et al. 2001). Additionally, it would appear that this form of abuse is
rarely challenged by teachers or other pupils and that together with the silence or
taboo around discussing homosexuality, tends to perpetuate the normalisation of
heterosexuality and the acceptance of homophobic bullying in schools (Atkinson
2002; Buston and Hart 2001). We could term this first and somehow more indirect,
or at least, ‘non-directed’ or ‘environmental’ sub-type heteronormative bullying.
The second type of homophobic bullying involves the active persecution of
known LGBT persons. One hardly needs to construct a specific term, although
‘sexual orientation-based bullying may suffice. As far as the recorded incidence of
this second sub-type of homophobic bullying goes, a study in Great Britain by
Stonewall (1999) found that an astonishing 93% of lesbian and gay young people
who are ‘out’ at school suffer verbal abuse. In Northern Ireland, YouthNet (2004)
found that 44% of LGBT youths had been bullied at school as a result of their sexual
orientation. Sadly, these people made up over half of all respondents who had self-
harmed and attempted suicide. Hence, the type of impact that sexual orientation-
based bullying has on those targeted cannot be underestimated.
Irish Educational Journal 179
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
Homophobic bullying in schools in the Republic of Ireland
As noted, until very recently, little was known about the prevalence or typology of
homophobic bullying in schools in Ireland. Mac an Ghaill (2006: vii) points out that
while the Equal Status Acts of 2001 and 2004 (Office of the Attorney General 2006)
have, through outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the
workplace, ‘increased positive recognition of gay and lesbian adults’ that para-
doxically, ‘a strange silence, covert complicity or explicit acceptance of sexual
discrimination against children’ currently co-exists. Mac an Ghaill (2006: viii),
recognising that ‘homophobia is one of the most divisive and destructive features of
contemporary society and yet for a long time one of the least recognised’ therefore
welcomed a recent report by Norman and Galvin (2006), who investigated 725
SPHE (Social, Personal and Health Education) teachers’ views and perceptions of
homophobic bullying. Norman, and Galvin (2006) found that 79% of the teachers
were aware of verbal homophobic bullying, and that 16% were aware of physical
bullying related to homophobia, 90% of the teachers responded that their school’s
anti-bullying policy did not cover homophobic bullying. That this research was
funded by government agencies is encouraging in terms of interest in the area.
A further positive development over recent years has been the establishment of
the BeLonG To Youth Project, ‘Ireland’s first and only designated lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender youth project’ (Barron and Collins 2005: 7). Operational
since 2002, it is funded by the Department of Education and Science, and provides
both one-to-one and group-based support for young LGBT people. Similarly,
GLEN (the gay and lesbian equality network), founded in 1987, has funding from
the Health Services Executive to ‘promote awareness and develop responses to the
factors that lead to poor mental health among lesbian and gay people’ (Barron and
Collins 2005: 7). Both organisations have been active in providing support services to
vulnerable young LGBT people concerning an array of their needs, including
bullying and suicidality.
The primary aim of the present study was to be able to explore and quantify the
extent of having been a target of homophobic bullying among a self-selecting sample
of secondary school-aged LGBT students in Ireland. A further aim was to gather
data on the experiences of young LGBT Irish people in terms of coming out and
finding support. The study extends previous research in the area by identifying
students’ perspectives and views. It should be noted that the nature of the sample
does indeed pose certain limitations for the study, and the wider interpretation of its
results. The sample was self-selecting; that is to say, responses to a targeted invitation
to take part in the study. Naturally, such a sample does not permit generalisation to
the larger population, as it is not a probability-based sample. Furthermore, self-
selecting samples, by their very nature, may encourage the participation of those who
have strong views about/definite experiences of the phenomenon under considera-
tion, thus skewing the data in the direction of ‘false positives’.
The ‘self-selecting’ strategy was adopted in the first place because a random
selection strategy based on the normal population would have involved asking
school students about both bullying (some schools are reluctant, no matter what
measures are taken around anonymity, to let their students take part (Minton and O’
Moore 2008)) and their sexual orientation. Given Norman, Galvin, and McNa-
mara’s experiences in 2004, we had every reason to expect that at least a significant
180 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
number of the students themselves and the schools to which they belonged might
have objected to questions regarding the latter (Norman, Galvin, and McNamara
2006).
1
On balance, as the title suggests, the survey is argued only to be exploratory
in nature, and has permitted the voices of the participants who volunteered to take
part to be heard for the first time, and also for certain methodologies to be tested,
with a view to more extensive research in the future.
Methodology
Participants
The full survey was completed by 90 young people (age range 15 to 31 years), with an
additional 33 respondents partially completing it. A ‘pen and paper’ version was
completed by 31 respondents in Dublin and Cork. An ‘on-line’ version was
completed by 92 respondents geographically dispersed throughout the Republic of
Ireland. The majority of respondents (95%) identified themselves as being LGBT or
unsure of their sexual orientation.
Materials
Contact was established with the ‘BeLonG To’ youth group in Dublin (a high profile
provider of youth services to LGBT young people), in order to discuss how best to
collect data on homophobic bullying. Based on these discussions, it was agreed
to use a survey which would be available in a pen and paper version at the ‘BeLonG
To’ premises and an electronic version that could be completed online. A survey was
developed based on a questionnaire used in the nationwide survey (O’ Moore,
Kirkham and Smith, 1997), and the Donegal primary schools anti-bullying
programme (O’Moore and Minton 2005). Additionally, LGBT-specific questions
were added, based on a questionnaire used in research in Northern Ireland
(YouthNet 2004). The draft survey was then reviewed, by ‘BeLonG To’, to check
for the appropriateness of the questions for the LGBT community.
Procedure
Once the survey was finalised, an online version was created using the survey builder
company at www.freeonlinesurveys.com. A banner was created carrying the message,
Are you a secondary school student this year? Please help us to investigate
homophobic bullying by completing our survey’. The banner was put up on the front
page of three different websites from mid-June 2006 to the end of July 2006. The first
website was www.belongto.org, a website specifically aimed at LGBT youth. The
second website was www.spunout.ie, an Irish website aimed at young people in
general. The third website to host the banner was www.abc.tcd.ie, the website of the
Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre at Trinity College. In addition pen and
paper versions of the survey were left at the BeLonG To premises in Dublin and
distributed to Unite’s premises in Cork (an LGBT youth group). Given that this
project was undertaken during the school holiday period, no further promotion
campaigns were engaged in to promote the survey.
Irish Educational Journal 181
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
Results
All results are given based on the number of respondents for each particular
question. The questionnaire was completed by 14 females (11.4% of the sample), 102
males (82.9%) and seven young people (5.7%) who identified as belonging to neither
gender. The sexual and gender orientation of the respondents is shown in Table 1,
below:
A total of 10 respondents (8.1%) identified themselves as being transgendered. The
ages of the respondents ranged from 15 to 31. Although the questionnaire was
primarily aimed at secondary school pupils, 16 respondents were over the age of 19
years. Presumably, these respondents desired to contribute to the research on
homophobic bullying in general, and will have made qualitative and quantitative
responses regarding life as a LGBT individual in Ireland today. Hence, a decision
was undertaken not to exclude these responses.
The respondents were spread across eighteen different counties across the four
historic provinces, although 20 respondents (16.3%) chose to specify simply that they
lived in the Republic of Ireland, but not which county. The majority of the
respondents came from Dublin (39.8%) and Cork (15.4%). Four fifths of the
respondents lived in urban as opposed to rural areas. Five respondents (4.1%) stated
that they had a disability. Six respondents reported themselves as being from an
ethnic minority; and further analysis revealed that all but one of these originated in
other western European countries.
When respondents were asked about their attitudes to school and how safe they
felt on the way to/from school, their responses covered a full spectrum of feelings.
These are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below. It can be seen that over a fifth of the
respondents (22%) did not feel safe on their way to and from school.
Respondents were asked questions about how they got on with other students at
school in terms of various events that may have happened to them over the past three
months. Their responses are shown in Table 2.
Despite the recent media coverage of cyber-bullying, this appears to be the form
of negative act least frequently experienced by respondents. Bullying around race
and religion were also uncommon, perhaps unsurprisingly given that 99% of
respondents are of Irish/West European ethnicity.
Verbal abuse in general was frequently (weekly/daily) experienced by approxi-
mately one-third (32.1%) of respondents, with verbal abuse around their sexuality
having been frequently experienced by slightly more respondents (34.3%). Indirect
Table 1. Respondents profiles by sexual and gender orientation
Sexual orientation Neither male/ female* Male Female Total number Total %
Lesbian 0 0 3 3 2.5
Gay 3 77 0 80 65.6
Bisexual 2 17 7 26 21.3
Heterosexual 1 3 2 6 4.9
Unsure 0 5 2 7 5.7
Total 6 102 14 122 100
*1 missing.
182 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
verbal bullying through the spreading of rumours and lies about an individual was
frequently experienced by 25% of the respondents.
Respondents were asked to tell us more about the name calling around their
sexuality if they wished. Below are some of the comments that they made:
Homophobic attitudes are very prevalent in all-boys schools, irrespective of your sexual
preference.
I was bullied mostly in school, but not in college.
In college everyone is far more accepting.
I get racism from some other boys here in my home country I was attacked for being
gay.
I know the whole school is gossiping about me.
There was a club on Bebo started about me.
They said it in a joking, yet nasty, way.
22%
31%
25%
8%
14%
Feel very safe
Mostly feel safe
Sometimes feel
safe
Not so safe
Not at all safe
Figure 2. Feelings about safety going to/from school
19%
14%
22%
26%
20%
Dislike school very
much
Dislike school
Neither like nor
dislike school
Like school
Like school very
much
Figure 1. Feelings about school
Irish Educational Journal 183
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
Physical bullying both before AND after they knew I was gay. It’s just that kind of
school.
It’s not anyone in particular. I feel like ‘Im singled out for slagging because I’m gay.
In the hallways people tend to slag me and at lunch I have no friends at all.
I am regularly verbally abused in the street. It used to terrify me, but now it doesnt stop
me from walking into town.
It’s younger years who do it.
People constantly shout at me gay, fag ... and a lot of the guys, joking, ask me for oral
sex ... it makes me feel very uncomfortable .. . and although they are loud and open in
their abuse, no teacher has ever stopped it or drawn attention to it ... its as if its normal,
and acceptable!
However, despite the frequency of the verbal and other abuse experienced by
respondents at school, the vast majority (90.7%) have persevered through it and have
not left school earlier than they wished. However concerns can be expressed at the
10% of respondents who stated they left school earlier than they would have wished,
with the inevitable implications for their education, careers and lives at a later stage.
Only 18 respondents (17.5%) had sought or experienced support around sexual
orientation while at school. Several respondents reported having spoken to a
guidance counsellor. Most respondents 72.2% reported that they knew LGBT people
in their school.
When asked whether they had been bullied, half of all respondents reported that
they had been bullied during the last 3 months; over 30% reported that they had been
bullied during the last 5 school days; 17.8% of the respondents reported having been
frequently bullied over the past 3 months; and 15% had experienced bullying three or
Table 2. Experiences at school to which respondents had been subjected over the past three
months
Event N Not in last 3
mths
Now &
again
Once a
week
Once
aday
Been physically hurt e.g. kicked, hit or
pushed around
104 69.2% 21.2% 7.7% 1.9%
Called nasty names, teased or made fun of 109 21.1% 46.8% 15.6% 16.5%
Called nasty names, teased, made fun of my
colour/race
95 88.4% 8.4% 2.1% 1.1%
Called nasty names, teased, made fun of my
religion
97 87.6% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Called nasty names, teased, made fun of my
sexuality
105 28.6% 37.1% 9.5% 24.8%
Have been threatened 104 59.6% 28.8% 7.7% 3.8%
Have been excluded, ignored or purposefully
left out of things
105 44.8% 35.2% 7.6% 12.4%
Have had lies or rumours spread about me to
make others dislike me
108 38.9% 36.1% 16.7% 8.3%
Have had money or belongings taken or had
damage to my property
104 74.0% 16.3% 9.6% 0.0%
Have received nasty text messages or pupils
have used mobiles to get at me
103 75.7% 19.4% 2.9% 1.9%
184 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
more times in the last 5 school days. Of those being bullied, almost two-thirds had
been bullied for more than 12 months. In O’ Moore’s nationwide survey of bullying
behaviour in Irish schools (O’ Moore, Kirkham, and Smith 1997), 15.6% of post-
primary pupils reported having been bullied within the last term.
Of course, we would like to urge caution in attributing excessive significance to
this comparison. First, as no questions were asked regarding sexual orientation in
O’Moore’s nationwide study, we must assume that sample to be a ‘mixed’ one,
although (if the usual incidence rates can be applied in what is, after all, a
representative sample in all other respects) a predominantly heterosexual one.
Conversely, the present survey of 123 LGBT makes no claims to the representative-
ness or generalisability of its sample. We note also that the voluntary nature of
the present methodology, especially with regard to the on-line survey, would be more
likely to encourage people who had been bullied to participate. Additionally, the age
ranges of the two surveys do not precisely coincide. However, even with these
significant methodological concerns having been noted, it seems likely from
the present findings that LGBT people are much more likely to be bullied at school
than are their heterosexual peers.
Respondents were asked whether they had told anyone about being bullied and
who they would tell if they were being bullied or if they knew of anyone else being
bullied. These figures are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 documents the fact that friends are most likely to be told about a bullying
episode whether it has actually been experienced by the person themselves (46%), or
if it might happen to oneself (56.1%) or to someone else (42.3%). These exceeded the
figures for parents (26%, 22% and 11.4% respectively) and adults at school (22%,
8.9%, and 34.1% respectively). It is interesting to note that whilst just 8.9% said that
they would tell an adult at school if they were being bullied, 34.1% said that they
would report on another’s behalf; also, that the proportion of those who had been
Table 3. To who respondents would or did report having been bullied
Told/Would Tell Who did you tell
when being
bullied (n50) %
Who would you tell if
you were being
bullied (n123) %
Who would you tell if
someone else was
being bullied (n 123) %
One or more
friends
46 56.1 42.3
An adult at school 22 8.9 34.1
Parents/guardians 26 22.0 11.4
I don’t know 12 17.1 13.0
I wouldnt tell
anybody
30 9.8 4.9
Teacher* 17.1
Guidance
counsellor*
16.3
Youth worker/
group*
15.4
* These alternatives were only presented for who respondents would tell if they were being bullied.
Irish Educational Journal 185
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
bullied and had reported this to a teacher (22%) exceeded that of those who said they
would do so were they to be bullied (8.9%). It would appear that there was a
difference in the resources the sample members perceived when considering what
could occur in a hypothetical situation, and those they did utilise when the situation
happens for real. In a similar vein, less than 10% of respondents reported that they
would do nothing in a hypothetical bullying situation; however, in reality, 30% of
those who had actually been bullied did not tell anyone.
When asked where they were bullied, the most common place appeared to be in
the corridors at school (72% of those bullied). Bullying also took place in the
playground/yard and in the school toilets for over half of those bullied. Bullying in
the changing rooms/showers was experienced by 26% of those bullied. In addition,
44% of those bullied experienced this while walking to and from school, while 18%
were bullied on some form of transport to and from school. Out of the 50
respondents who said they were bullied, the majority were likely to be bullied by
someone in their own class (72%) or year (62%). People in younger classes were also
likely to be a source of bullying (42%) and less so from older classes (20%).
The respondents were also asked whether their sexual orientation had a negative
impact in other areas related to school, 18.7% of respondents reported achieving
lower results due to their sexual orientation, and 11.4% experienced truancy,
although only 3.3% dropped out of school due to their sexual orientation. In
addition, 6.5% of the respondents changed school due to their sexual orientation.
When asked about the perpetrators of bullying, these appeared to be over-
whelmingly male, with only two respondents indicating that girls alone had bullied
them. This could be a result of the fact that the majority of the respondents were
male. The perpetrators were more likely to be part of a group, with 79.2% of bullied
respondents indicating that they were bullied by a group of pupils. The bullying was
not exclusive to fellow students however, with 20.3% of all respondents indicating
that they had been bullied by someone other than a pupil at school. These ‘other’
perpetrators were stated as being random people, parents, co-workers, boys in the
local area and teachers. This bullying by other perpetrators was manifested in both
verbal and physical bullying.
Discussion
Large-scale empirical research studies of bullying behaviour in Ireland that have
addressed these issues have revealed that school bullying is a widespread, serious and
pervasive issue around one-in-three primary school students (Minton 2006) and
one-in-six post-primary school students (O’ Moore, Kirkham, and Smith 1997)
report having been bullied within the last school term/three months. More intensive
qualitative research reveals its presence among children in primary schools (Devine
2003, Devine and Kelly 2006, and post-primary schools (Lynch and Lodge 2002).
While far less is known about homophobic bullying, or the bullying of school-aged
LGBT people, what is known marks these phenomena as a cause for significant
concern. In the present survey, half of all respondents reported that they had been
bullied during the last three months, and over 30% reported that they had been
bullied during the last five school days. Frequent bullying was reported by 17.8% of
the respondents who said they had been frequently bullied during the past three
months (that is to say, once a week or more often) and 15% had experienced bullying
186 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
three or more times in their last 5 school days. In other words, whereas O’ Moore
Kirkham, and Smith (1997), in their nationwide representative sample, recorded one-
in-six of the general post-primary school-aged population had been bullied at
school within the last three months, the figure recorded in our (admittedly,
non-representative) sample of young LGBT post-primary school-aged people was
one-in-two.
However, as we have already emphasised, considerable caution must be exercised
in comparing the findings of these two studies due to the existence of substantial
differences in the nature of the samples, age ranges of participants, and general
methodology with specific regard to sampling frames. As was noted above, the
current survey used a purposive, self-selecting sample (which, as noted above, raises
definite limitations), whereas the survey reported in O’ Moore, Kirkham, and Smith
(1997) was nationally representative. Nevertheless, we were able to tentatively
conclude that it is likely that LGBT pupils form a particularly ‘at-risk’ group with
regards to bullying within the general school-going population.
Given this finding, it is arguable that homophobic bullying should be included as
a matter of concern in pre-service and in-service teacher training. In terms of the
realisation of this assertion, a certain amount of precedent - especially regarding the
potential compilation and design of resources does exist in other countries. In
Britain, and also in the United States, a number of projects designed to tackle
homophobic abuse in schools have been implemented over the last few years. These
have been documented by Bridget (2003), and in Britain include productions such as
the Avon Health Promotion Service’s Beyond a Place: A Practical Guide to
Challenging Homophobia in Schools (1999), Bolton Homophobic Bullying Forum’s
Tackling Homophobic Bullying in Schools (2001), and the Schools Out website
(www.schools-out.org.uk). The National Union of Teachers (UK) held a seminar on
Combating Homophobic Bullying on 2 April 2002. In the United States, agencies
such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and the Safe
Schools Coalition challenge homophobic bullying and violence (www.glsen.org and
www.safeschoolscoalition.org respectively; c.f. Bridget, 2003). Bridget (2003) also
cites a useful set of recommendations produced by Mullen (2002), which had been
included in Bradford Educations Diversity in Practice: Guide for Schools in 2000’.
Among these recommendations (which were made to secondary schools) were the
following, which we believe could readily be transferred to the situation in schools in
Ireland:
Challenge homophobic bullying in the same way as other forms of bullying;
Ensure that there is explicit mention of the unacceptability of homophobic comments,
name-calling and aggressive behaviour in the schools guidelines on bullying, behaviour
and equal opportunities;
Include homosexuality in sex education and other discussions that centre around
heterosexual choices;
Include lesbian and gay help-lines on school notice-boards along with other help-lines;
Make it clear that they acknowledge gay and lesbian pupils within the school
community; and,
Listen to pupils who want to talk about themselves. Young people should never have to
feel they are the only one or that they are invisible.
Irish Educational Journal 187
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
The common-place use of homophobic pejoratives in Irish (Mac an Ghaill 1994,
Mac an Ghaill, Hanafin and Conway 2004; O’Moore and Minton 2004), British
(Duncan, 1999; Thurlow, 2001) and US (O’Conor 1994) schools has already been
outlined. We have also already seen that while not always meant literally (Sharpe
2002; Thurlow 2001; Warwick, Aggleton and Douglas 2001) such abuse often has the
function of heteronormative policing (Duncan 1999; Mac an Ghaill, Hanafin and
Conway 2004) and is always unacceptable (O Moore and Minton 2004). While this
distinction was not evident in the results of the current survey,
2
it was contended
that two sub-types of homophobic bullying might be discernible. It is also possible
that these two sub-types might have different implications for school policy and
resource formation. The first sub-type of homophobic bullying we identified, which
we termed heteronormative bullying, relates to the non-targeted general attitude of
homophobia which may permeate any organisation, including schools. As this is
related to unthinking and ignorant commentary and behaviour, rather than to
attacks directly targeted at LGBT people, the way to combat it would seem to be via
education and awareness-raising. Indeed, the recommendations produced by Mullen
(2002) cited in Bridget 2003) referred to above would seem to provide a sound
framework that would be applicable in schools in the Republic of Ireland.
The second sub-type of homophobic bullying was termed sexual orientation-
based bullying, and involves the active persecution of persons known to be
homosexual, bisexual or transgendered. A concerted effort involving all relevant
agencies needs to be made in order to prevent such cowardly and despicable acts. It is
very likely that LGBT youth groups will continue to play an important role.
However, what is most needed is a societal condemnation and zero tolerance of
homophobic violence. Notwithstanding the strong role that parents, the media,
legislature and policing can and must play, we can see from our perspective as
educators that schools can also have a role in creating a condemnatory attitude
towards homophobic violence, and that the key once again is preventative practise.
Given the general finding that children can develop prejudicial attitudes at a young
age (Santrock 1996) an age when issues around sexuality are necessarily broached
with considerable caution primary school action on the issue of homophobic
bullying might best be made somewhat obliquely, through the encouragement of the
general tolerance and celebration of diversity among people (Devine and Kelly
2006).
It can also be stated at this time that a body of knowledge concerning
homophobic bullying is slowly growing in Ireland, and a key and more direct tactic
in tackling the issue may well be the effective dissemination of this knowledge in
post-primary school communities. The SPHE curriculum is, within the context of the
Irish education system, a logical and available place to start, and Norman et al.’s
(2006) research has shown that SPHE teachers are under no illusions as to the extent
and seriousness of homophobic bullying as an issue in schools. However, research
conducted in the United States has shown that teachers often do not challenge
homophobic epithets (Flannery 1999; cited in Chang and Kleiner, 2001), with
researchers in the UK sharing this general finding, and citing common reasons for
not addressing the problem as being parental disapproval (18%), a lack of
experienced staff (17%) and a lack of policy (16%). In Ireland, Norman et al.
(2006) found that although 79% of teachers were aware of verbal homophobic
bullying, and 16% were aware of physical bullying related to homophobia, 90% of
188 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
the teachers responded that their schools anti-bullying policy did not cover
homophobic bullying. Hence, it would seem that awareness is not lacking what
teachers may be lacking are the tools to deal with the problem. In reality, this will
mean increasing training opportunities and resources; however, in the short term,
we would urge all schools to update their anti-bullying policies if no explicit mention
of homophobic bullying has been made. Pre and in-service professional teacher
development also has a role to play.
Finally, it is also important that an inter-agency approach to providing supports
to schools continue to be developed. In short, while it has been acknowledged that
comparatively little was known concerning the issue until recently, there is every
possibility that a substantial increase in expertise concerning the tackling and
prevention of homophobic bullying in all its forms in Irish schools could be gained in
the near future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for their support in conducting this research:
the Irish Youth Foundation, BeLonG To Project, Unite and the Anti-Bullying Research and
Resource Centre, and Senator David Norris.
Notes
1. Concerning the response to the Department of Education and Science-funded survey of
SPHE teachers concerning homophobic bullying in March 2004, Walshe (2004), cited in
Norman, Galvin, and McNamara 2006) recorded (in a front page Irish Independent
newspaper article) that managers and parents are up in arms over a controversial survey
about gay, lesbian and bisexual policies in post-primary schools. Furthermore, voluntary
school mangers felt that some of the questions were intrusive and inappropriate, and that it
was decided not to co-operate with it [the survey] until the matter and the purpose of the
survey was clarified further. Additionally, he described the Catholic Secondary Parents
Association as having called the survey a waste of tax-payers money. The article is re-
printed as an appendix in Norman, Galvin, and McNamara 2006: 149.
2. As our sample involved self-identified LGBT people, it is only to be expected that it would
be the second proposed sub-type of homophobic bullying, sexual orientation-based
bullying that would feature, as it did (witness the large percentage of respondents
(71.2%, see Table 2) who reported that they had been called nasty names, teased or
made fun of on the grounds of their sexuality). The first proposed sub-type of homophobic
bullying, heteronormative bullying, might be expected to feature strongly in studies of
bullying in the general population as indeed (see Duncan, 1999), it does.
References
Atkinson, E. 2002. Education for diversity in a multisexual society: negotiating the
contradictions of contemporary discourse. Sex Education 2: 2.
Barron, M., and E. Collins. 2005. Responding to the needs of vulnerable lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgendered youth. Presented to the Irish Association of Suicidology Fifth Annual
Conference, December 2, in Dublin.
Bridget, J. 2003. Preventing homophobic bullying in Calderdale schools. Calderdale, West
Yorkshire: GALYIC Gay and Lesbian Youth in Calderdale.
Buston, K., and G. Hart. 2001. Heterosexism and homophobia in Scottish school sex
education: exploring the nature of the problem. Journal of Adolescence 24: 95109.
Irish Educational Journal 189
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
Chang, C.W., and B.H. Kleiner. 2001. New developments concerning discrimination and
harassment of gay students. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21, no. 8:
10815.
Collins, E. 1999. Education: Lesbian and gay men, developing equal opportunities. Dublin: Gay/
HIV Strategies and Nexus Research.
Department of Education and Science. 1993. Guidelines on countering bullying behaviour in
primary and post-primary schools. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Devine, D. 2003. Children, power and schooling how childhood is structured in the primary
school. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Devine, D. with M. Kelly. 2006. I just don’t want to get picked on by anybody Dynamics of
inclusion and exclusion in a newly multi-ethnic Irish primary school. Children and Society
20, no. 2, 128139.
Douglas, N., I. Warwick, G. Whitty, P. Aggleton, and S. Kemp. 1999. Homophobic bullying in
secondary schools in England and Wales teachers experiences. Health Education 99, no. 2:
5360.
Duncan, N. 1999. Sexual Bullying: Gender conflict and pupil culture in secondary schools.
London: Routledge.
Lynch, K., and A. Lodge. 2002. Equality and power in schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Mac an Ghaill, M. 1994. The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
*** 2006. Foreword in Straight Talk: Researching Gay and Lesbian Issues in the School
Curriculum. J. Norman, M. Galvin, and G. McNamara. Dublin, Department of Education
and Science Gender Equality Unit.
Mac an Ghaill, M., J. Hanafin, and P.F. Conway. 2004. Gender politics and exploring
masculinities in Irish Education. Dublin: NCCA.
Mason, G. 1993. Violence against lesbians and gay men. Trends and Issues, 2 November,
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Minton, S.J. 2006. Addressing the concerns of teachers around bullying behaviour in school
communities. Presented at the Fifth International Conference on Workplace Bullying: The
Way Forward, June 1517, in Dublin.
Minton, S.J., and A.M. O’Moore. 2008. The effectiveness of a nationwide intervention
programme to prevent and counter school bullying in Ireland. International Journal of
Psychology and Psychological Therapy 8, no. 1: 112.
Norman, J. 2004. A survey of teachers on homophobic bullying in Irish second-level Schools.
Dublin: Dublin City University.
Norman, J., and M. Galvin. 2006. Straight talk: An investigation of attitudes and experiences of
homophobic bullying in second-level schools. Dublin: Department of Education and Science
Gender Equality Unit.
Norman, J., M. Galvin, and G. McNamara. 2006. Straight talk: Researching gay and lesbian
issues in the school curriculum. Dublin: Department of Education and Science Gender
Equality Unit.
Office of the Attorney General. 2006. Acts of the Oireachtas and Statutory Instruments 1922
2005. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
O’Conor, A. 1994. Who gets called ‘queer’ in school? Lesbian, gay, bisexual-teenagers,
homophobia and high school. The High School Journal 19931994: 712.
O’Moore, A.M., C. Kirkham, and M. Smith. 1997. Bullying behaviour in Irish schools: A
nationwide study. Irish Journal of Psychology 182: 14169.
O’Moore, A.M., and S.J. Minton. 2004. Dealing with bullying in Schools: A training manual for
teachers, parents and other professionals. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
***. 2005. An evaluation of the effectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary
schools. Aggressive Behaviour 31, no. 6: 60922.
190 S.J. Minton et al.
Downloaded By: [Minton, Stephen James] At: 01:21 25 April 2008
Santrock, J.W. 1996. Adolescence: An introduction, 6th ed. Dubuque, IA: Brown, and
Benchmark.
Sharpe, S. 2002. ‘It’s just really hard to come to terms with’: young people’s views on
homosexuality. Sex Education 2, no. 3: 26377.
Smith, P.K., ed. 2003. Violence in schools: The response in Europe. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Smith, P.K., Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.F. Catalano, and P. Slee, eds. 1999. The
nature of school bullying: A cross national perspective. London: Routledge.
Smith, P.K., D. Pepler, and K. Rigby, eds. 2004. Bullying in schools: how successful can
interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stonewall. 1999. 77% of gay pupils suffer homophobic bullying. Stonewall News. April 21.
http//www.stonewall.org.uk/news.
Thurlow, C. 2001. Naming the outsider within: homophobic pejoratives and the verbal abuse
of lesbian, gay and bisexual high-school pupils. Journal of Adolescence 24: 2538.
Warwick, I., P. Aggleton, and N. Douglas. 2001. Playing it safe: addressing the emotional and
physical health of lesbian and gay pupils in the UK. Journal of Adolescence 24: 12940.
YouthNet. 2004. ShOut: research into the needs of young people in Northern Ireland who
identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/ or transgender. Belfast: YouthNet.
Irish Educational Journal 191
... In 2006, a government funded 'Stop Homophobic Bullying in Schools' campaign was launched, which provided resources to schools on how to support LGBT students and emphasised the importance of the grounds of discrimination outlined in the Equal Status Acts. Along with vital legislative changes, a body of research began to emerge on the topic of homophobic bullying in Irish schools (Norman, 2004;Minton et al., 2008;O'Higgins-Norman, 2008;Mayock et al., 2009). Following an anti-bullying forum in 2012, the DES established a working group to address bullying in Irish schools. ...
... Language as oppression is one of the key themes identified in the work of various researchers on the topic of homophobic bullying, as derogatory language and homophobic slurs can be used as a way to affirm in-group and out-group identity, where heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality (real or perceived) is a deviation (Epstein and Johnson, 1998;Galvin, 2005, 2006;Minton et al., 2008;Farrelly, O'Higgins Norman and O'Leary, 2017). Data from O'Higgins Norman and study suggested that many teachers and parents accepted homophobic language (such as using 'gay' as a pejorative) as normal behaviour among adolescents and not deserving of reproach. ...
... Negative language directly contributes to school climate for LGBTQ adolescents (Thurlow, 2001;Guasp, 2014;Poteat, Slaatten and Breivik, 2019). Indirect negative language can also be used as a way to affirm in-group or out-group identity, enforcing a dominant ideology of heteronormativity within a school and leaving LGBTQ young people feeling othered (Minton et al., 2008;O'Higgins Norman, 2009;Minton, 2014). In terms of interventions on hearing negative language, Wernick et al. (2014) found that students' ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This mixed methods study explores the experiences of gifted LGBTQ post-primary students in Ireland. The participant sample in this study is composed of current post-primary students and recent university students, who have been identified as gifted and attended a CTYI summer programme between 2017 and 2019. The quantitative data collection method was an online anonymous questionnaire, while the qualitative data collection methods were interviews and focus groups. Quantitative data is analysed to examine the frequency of negative remarks and language about LGBTQ people, the frequency of intervention by staff, students and the respondents themselves when this language occurs and the correlation between climate and intervention. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data was conducted, which identified common themes within the negative language used. Factors that influenced participants’ willingness to intervene in situations of negative language use were also explored. The transformative paradigm guides this study, which places central importance on the lives and experiences of marginalised communities, uses transformative theory to develop the inquiry approach and links results of social inquiry to action. The study also explores identity development for gifted LGBTQ post-primary students, including the experience of coming out, social and emotional development and peer relations. This study is the first to discuss the experiences of gifted LGBTQ young people in Ireland.
... This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their LGB orientation at a younger age, which is increasingly common . 7, 46,47,48 Social workers working with children and adolescents have an important role in identifying stressors related to sexual orientation when young people present with emotional and behavioural difficulties . ...
Article
Full-text available
A "good practice" guide, developed by the Irish Association of Social Workers (IASW) in collaboration with GLEN (Gay and Lesbian Equality Network) to inform social workers of what they need to know when providing a service to lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people and their families . It was endorsed by the Health Service Executive’s National Office for Suicide Prevention.
... For example, Kelleher (2009) studied minority stress within a sample of youth aged 16-24 years and identified as lesbian (15%), gay (55%), bisexual (19%), questioning (9%), heterosexual (1%) and ''other'' (1%), and female (25%), male (69%), transgender (3%), and questioning (3%). Minton et al. (2008) reached 122 people (age range 15 to 31 years) but with a gender-unbalanced sample (14 females (11.4% of the sample), 102 males (82.9%) and six young people (5.7%) who identified as belonging to neither gender). Hazel et al. (2019) worked with similar percentages of students: 12% identified as transgender or gender-variant, 45% homosexual and 37% bisexual. ...
Article
Full-text available
Never in Spain’s history have sexual minorities enjoyed the current rights. However, LGBTIphobic rhetoric displayed by extreme-right activism threats the gains made. An online survey among LGBTI+ people between 16 and 29 years was conducted. 152 people answered. Results show that Spanish LGBTI+ youth is mostly prone to activism, they were quite informed about legal initiatives and they mostly think that LGBTI+ people continue to suffer discrimination, the group of friends and peers appears to be the safest context and teachers seem to fail on the duty of help LGBTI+ young people. Additionally, LGBTI+ young people often use inclusive language, especially in casual context, and they seek referents in social media, where they follow influencers who openly declared themselves part of the LGBTI+ collective. The study serves as an example of the changing cultural and political practices of non-cis-hetero youth in a society moving fast towards equality but attending the raising of regressive movements.
... For example, Kelleher (2009) studied minority stress within a sample of youth aged 16-24 years and identified as lesbian (15%), gay (55%), bisexual (19%), questioning (9%), heterosexual (1%) and ''other'' (1%), and female (25%), male (69%), transgender (3%), and questioning (3%). Minton et al. (2008) reached 122 people (age range 15 to 31 years) but with a gender-unbalanced sample (14 females (11.4% of the sample), 102 males (82.9%) and six young people (5.7%) who identified as belonging to neither gender). Hazel et al. (2019) worked with similar percentages of students: 12% identified as transgender or gender-variant, 45% homosexual and 37% bisexual. ...
Article
Full-text available
Never in Spain’s history have sexual minorities enjoyed the current rights. However, LGBTIphobic rhetoric displayed by extreme-right activism threats the gains made. An online survey among LGBTI+ people between 16 and 29 years was conducted. 152 people answered. Results show that Spanish LGBTI+ youth is mostly prone to activism, they were quite informed about legal initiatives, and they mostly think that LGBTI+ people continue to suffer discrimination, the group of friends and peers appears to be the safest context and teachers seem to fail on the duty of help LGBTI+ young people. Additionally, LGBTI+ young people often use inclusive language, especially in casual context, and they seek referents in social media, where they follow influencers who openly declared themselves part of the LGBTI+ collective. The study serves as an example of the changing cultural and political practices of non-cis-hetero youth in a society moving fast towards equality but attending the raising of regressive movements.
... Despite homophobic violence at school being historically ignored or perceived as less threatening (Rivers, 2011), recent studies have broadened our understanding regarding educational experiences of LGBTQIA + youth and have indicated that educational settingsespecially secondary schoolsare often neither inclusive, nor safe places for LGBTQIA+ and gender non-conforming students. An increasing body of global research has established that LGBTQIA + students are at greater risk of experiencing verbal, physical and psychological violence, as well as cyberbullying (Elipe et al., 2018;Espelage & Swearer, 2008;Göçmen & Yılmaz, 2017;Guasp et al., 2015;Kosciw et al., 2020;Minton et al., 2008;Moyano, Sánchez-Fuentes, & del, 2020;Okanlawon, 2017;Prati et al., 2011;Rodríguez-Hidalgo & Hurtado-Mellado, 2019;Slaatten et al., 2015;Ybarra et al., 2015). ...
Research
Full-text available
The current study aims to investigate aspects of homophobic school-based violence from a teachers’ perspective. A sample of 453 secondary education teachers across Greece participated and reported their intention for reactions against four hypothetical scenarios of homophobic violence (psychological, verbal, cyberbullying, physical). When expressing high intention to intervene, teachers were more likely to inform other school staff. The majority of the respondents (86.1%) had not received training on homophobic violence during their university studies, while those who had received such postgraduate training manifested stronger intention to act. Female and middle school teachers reported a stronger intention to act compared to male and high school teachers, respectively. Only 11% of the participants stated that their school had an action plan against homophobic violence. These results call for the development of school personnel training on homophobic violence and for the implementation of LGBTQIA + inclusive anti-harassment policies.
... Meanwhile, in the UK, surveys by the LGBT charity Stonewall have found that homophobic and biphobic bullying declined between 2007 and 2017, but still remains prevalent with 45% of LGBT+ students, including 64% of trans students, reporting having been bullied for being LGBT+ in British schools (Bradlow et al., 2017). Similarly, a study in Ireland found over 50% of young LGBT people reported experiencing homophobic bullying at school (Minton et al., 2008). Although relatively little data has been collected on anti-LGBT+ bullying in schools internationally, available evidence suggests homophobic bullying in schools is a problem in almost every region of the world (e.g., UNESCO, 2012). ...
... Language used by the school, the gifted teacher, and in the curricula may not make G/LGBTQ+ students or LGBTQ+ parents/guardians feel welcomed. A lack of inclusive language also contributes to a dominant ideology of heteronormativity and cisnormativity within schools (Farrelly et al., 2017;Minton et al., 2008;Peter et al., 2016). School communications commonly use terminology that assumes heterosexual family configurations, which can alienate G/LGBTQ+ students as well as LGBTQ+ family members (Treat, 2018). ...
Article
In this study, we focused on teachers’ knowledge and awareness of LGBT+ issues in a Catholic secondary school in Ireland. We explored the barriers teachers encounter that prevent them from being openly supportive of LGBT+ students. For this study, 40 teachers completed an online questionnaire, which was followed by a smaller focus group interview comprising 6 teachers. The findings demonstrate a lack of knowledge about LGBT+ issues among teachers, and the majority have not received any training related to this topic. This can be linked with their lack of awareness of policies, supports, and resources available to help LGBT+ students. The findings suggest a lack of self-awareness because some teachers were not supportive of issues that affect LGBT+ students but believed otherwise. It also is clear from the results that there are mixed perceptions of what is acceptable to discuss and support due to the Catholic ethos of the school. These findings reflect several barriers to supporting LGBT+ students and issues.
Article
Bullying in Schools is the first comparative account of the major intervention projects against school bullying that have been carried out by educationalists and researchers since the 1980s, across Europe, North America and Australasia. Working on the principle that we can learn from success as well as failure, this book examines the processes as well as the outcomes, and critically assesses the likely reasons for success or failure. With contributions from leading researchers in the field, it is an important addition to the current debate on tackling this distressing problem.
Article
In spite of recent significant changes to the National Curriculum in England and Wales, including the introduction of personal, social and health education and citizenship, the subjects of sexuality and sexual identity remain virtually untouched in English primary and secondary schools. While diversity of sexual orientation is acknowledged in new government guidance on sex and relationship education, it receives no explicit recognition elsewhere in the curriculum. In this article, the author examines the current social, political and legal context within which this curriculum is situated, and its often contradictory intersections with popular culture. Drawing on current research into sexuality, gender construction and heteronormative forces in education, the author outlines a complex and contradictory network of forces which simultaneously exploit and undermine non-heterosexual lifestyles and relationships, and examines the way in which these discourses permeate both the school and wider society. The author considers ways in which these intersections and contradictions might be used as a means of challenging compulsory heterosexuality within and beyond the school.