Survey & Qualitative Research 2017-2020
Survey research: Using data from the survey done for the Commission on Bullying, we ask, "What are the elements of the situation that correlate with a community that is bully-free compared with one that has bullying and mobbing?”
Qualitative research: factors influencing persistence / control of mobbing and compliance with public health rules for maintaining 6 feet distance from others and using a face covering.
Qualitative research
This is a summary of a paper prepared in 2020 that looked at factors influencing persistence / control of mobbing and compliance with public health rules for maintaining 6 feet distance from others and using a face covering.
We use two kinds of research to understand the dynamics of multifamily housing and identify what conditions permit or inhibit bullying. The first method is qualitative research, and we ask “ How?” and “ Why” and seek answers by observing, listening, and comparing. Based on qualitative research, we have identified two social and administrative situations in residential communities.
-
Bullying-free Residential Community—landlord is diligent, acts to prevents bullying;
-
Residential Community Mobbing—the landlord & agents condone bullying— bullying takes place but is ignored by the landlord and their agents; and—the landlord & agents use and enable bullying.
Identifying these two kinds of situation in the social and administrative context of the residential community help to explain mobbing and bullying in public and subsidized multifamily housing developments. Management styles for social control correlate with the presence or absence and the degree of bullying and mobbing. In our qualitative research we discovered the importance of establishing a common understanding and agreement on a legitimate order for the community. Achieving such commonality requires communication and trust among all the members of the community. The lack of such an agreement can lead to the chaos we observe in situations of mobbing. We examined the presence or absence of variables including bullying, abuse, harassment, assault; the type of management; the nature of social life; and the use or threat of eviction.
Community Norms, Social Distancing & Bullying
The norms of a community are a major factor in enabling or preventing bullying. By comparing several housing communities, we can find the factors that make a difference. I wanted to test the prediction that we would see movement towards a more healthy community if all the stakeholders wanted the change—civic leaders, housing authority, management, social workers, and tenants. Instead, the same problems which seem to have systemic sources keep emerging and we must address those sources for a lasting solution.
Community norms can either promote a healthy, caring community or lead to a toxic community that is harmful. In public and subsidized housing for the elderly and disabled, failure to control bullying and mobbing (group bullying) creates a toxic community, while failing to prevent transmission of COVID-19 can create a deadly situation. Among the factors that may influence community norms and adherence to those norms are the goals and methods of several actors—norms of the local municipality, the landlord or local housing authority, the management and staff, and tenants, including tenants associations.
One method of management to maintain community norms is compassionate: establishing trust and improving communication and understanding.
Another method is assertive: intervening to stop inappropriate behavior by warnings and sanctions.
A gentle, compassionate approach to management succeeds in the absence of prior mobbing; and so does an assertive, interventionist approach. But on the record presented here, the assertive, interventionist approach may be better suited to rapidly stopping prior group bullying/mobbing. Both approaches have proven merit in specific contexts, and a combination of these approaches or styles may be the most effective management tool-kit. Tenants associations can have a positive or negative impact on community norms.
Survey research
The Commission on Bullying conducted the Statewide Survey on Bullying of Tenants in Public and Subsidized Multifamily Housing and received responses from 617 tenants, managers, and others involved in multifamily communities for the elderly and people with disability. When we review the results of the survey, we can ask “What are the elements of the situation that correlate with a community that is bully-free compared with one that has bullying and mobbing?”
No one factor seems dominant and sufficient to account for the differences. We identified three factors found in the survey that may help, together or separately, to prevent bullying:
-
management is present on site; provided, however, that they do not engage in or condone bullying;
-
there is a resident service coordinator on site who creates a welcoming and inclusive environment;
-
official rules and policies are known to all.
Role of tenants
The role of the local tenant association, resident group, or resident advisory board does not show a meaningful difference in the survey data. However, this finding may be caused by the lack of power and influence that tenants can have in most residential settings. In developing new programs, the potential for tenants to be an important part of creating a healthy community should not be overlooked. And there must be safeguards against tenant groups misusing their strength to bully and mob. How can the tenants have a more effective role? In the cooperative model, we see that tenants are capable of managing their housing, and in some well-managed housing, tenants collaborate with management to maintain a healthy, peaceful community life.
Prevalence of bullying in the survey
This is a report on findings based on analysis of the raw survey data by Halberstadt. The survey results are reported by Halberstadt and Marvin So.
Almost half of the respondents experience bullying in the housing developments where they live or work. Respondents, 178/617 or 29%, living in communities that likely have mobbing—they reported being bullied and seeing others bullied. Slightly more than half of the respondents did not report experiencing bullying. About 30% of respondents live in bully-free communities— not only did they not report being bullied, but they did not report observing others who were bullied. The agents of the landlord—managers and staff—as well as residents perpetrated bullying. Agents also reported being bullied.
A major source of the bullying had to do with governance of the community (80%). Bullying targeted people for their official role (29%) and in retaliation for making complaints against management or staff (29%) or tenants (22%). At the fall 2017 convention of the Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants, about 80 out of 100 tenant leaders reported they had been bullied or had witnessed bullying in their housing communities. Other perceived reasons for bullying were gender; disability; and race or ethnicity. Very few persons who had been bullied were successful in getting relief, ranging from 16% as reported by victims who sought help to 32% as reported by those who observed the process. Many did not even seek a remedy because they feared retaliation if they complained.
Where we find conditions comparable to mobbing, bullying is done by agents of the landlord and by tenants in similar numbers, 63% and 62%. The perceived causes of bullying targets were that agents of the landlord were targeted 21%, while 49% was directed at people out of prejudice and were likely civil rights violations.—Jerry Halberstadt and Marvin So, Statewide Survey on Bullying of Tenants in Public and Subsidized Multifamily Housing: Report of the Committee for Research on Conditions and Prevalence of the Commission on Bullying, (Boston: Mass Commission on Bullying, 2017).