A qualitative exploration of the determinants of youth violence using participatory action research: a Sri Lankan study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3130629/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A qualitative exploration of the determinants of youth violence using participatory action research: a Sri Lankan study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3130629/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Youth violence is a significant health issue mainly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Violence is growing among Sri Lankan youth, yet research addressing it has been almost non-existent. Various personal and environmental factors place youth at risk of violence. The present study aimed to identify the determinants of youth violence from the perspectives of students and key informants of a Sri Lankan technical college.

Methods

The current study used the participatory action research (PAR) approach. The study was conducted at a technical college in Matale district, Sri Lanka with a sample of 74 students. Participants were involved in developing the focus group discussion (FGD) guide and key informant interview (KII) guide, which were the methods of data collection. Four FGDs and seven KIIs were conducted until data saturation was achieved. Thematic analysis was used in the data analysis. Participants were engaged and involved in the data collection and analysis where necessary in line with the PAR principles.

Results

The determinants of youth violence identified in the current study are presented under five themes: 1. individual-level determinants, 2. family-level determinants, 3. school-level determinants, 4. determinants specific to the technical college, and 5. societal-level determinants. Individual-level determinants reported by participants included poor awareness, inability to bear being defeated, frequent victimization, unemployment, psychological stress, and substance abuse. Family-level determinants reported were poor parental affection, guidance and parenting skills, distorted family connections and family disruption, pressure on education, witnessing domestic violence as a child, and discrimination within the family. School-level determinants included school dropouts, peer influences, discrimination at school, and the competitive education system. Furthermore, participants described subculture and diversity among students as determinants specific to the technical college. Societal-level determinants identified by participants included social discrimination, disadvantage, disparity and inequity, increase in the requirements and change in the goals of youth, justification, glamorization and normalization of violence, gaps in law enforcement, socio-political instabilities and the rise of inflation.

Conclusions

The PAR approach facilitated the identification of a variety of individual, family, school, and societal-level determinants of youth violence which may contribute to addressing violence in tertiary education institutes in Sri Lanka and other LMICs.

Determinants

Participatory action research

Qualitative

Sri Lanka

Technical college

Youth violence

Youth violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force or power to threaten or harm others by young people aged 10-24” (1). Youth violence has been identified as a global public health issue, and it ranges from bullying and physical fighting to more severe forms such as sexual and physical harassment (2). In the present study, the age range of 15-29 years was considered youth according to the national youth policy of Sri Lanka (3).

Youth violence causes an estimated 200 000 homicides in the age group 10-29 each year, which is 42% of the total number of homicides that occur worldwide (2). According to a United Nations Children’s Fund report, approximately 150 million students aged 13-15 years worldwide have experienced peer violence in and around their schools (4). Most of the countries that report youth homicide rates above 10.0 per 100 000 are developing countries except the United States (5). Among Asian countries, the prevalence of physical fighting reported according to the global school-based student health survey (GSHS) was as follows: China at 16.59%, Thailand at 33.30%, Indonesia at 33.76%, Sri Lanka at 47.28% and the Philippines at 50.02% (6).

In Sri Lanka, according to the GSHS, 2016, 35%, 43.8%, and 35.6% of students from the 13-17 years age group were physically attacked, in a physical fight, and seriously injured one or more times during the past 12 months before the survey respectively (7). The national youth health survey in Sri Lanka in 2013 revealed that 3.7% of male and 1.5% of female youths aged 15-19 years had been involved in a fight during the last year that needed medical treatment (8). As per the national survey on emerging issues among adolescents (n=29 911) in Sri Lanka, 75% of adolescents had undergone some form of peer violence in school (9). A study performed using 13–25 year-old youth in the district of Gampaha, Sri Lanka, showed that the victimization to any form of violence at least once during the last six months was 85.1% (10). Another study conducted with grade 10 students (n=246) in the Colombo district reported a prevalence of 51% of physical violence and 41% of verbal violence during the last months (11). Ragging is another form of violence among Sri Lankan university students (12). A study performed using 1322 Sri Lankan undergraduates found that 44% and 36% of students had experienced sexual and physical harassment respectively (12).

Extensive research studies conducted in recent decades in many countries have identified that various personal characteristics and environmental conditions place children and youth at risk of violence (13). Individual characteristics such as low intelligence, higher impulsiveness, mental illnesses, and beliefs that support violence cause youth violence (2,14–16). The family factors that cause youth violence are family disruption and domestic violence, poor parenting practices, poor parental supervision, alcohol abuse of parents, larger families, and young mothers (14–16). Victimization by bullying at school, associating with delinquent peers and peer pressure are also risk factors for youth violence (14,16,19). Early involvement with alcohol, tobacco and other substances also leads to engaging in youth violence (2,14).

A Sri Lankan study reported that having mental health issues, poor adolescent–parent interaction, use of alcohol by parents, perceived low family support, corporal punishment by parents, poor school performance, associating with aggressive friends, ever having engaged in a dating relationship, exposure to media violence, witnessing physical violence among neighbours, and the occurrence of crimes in the residential area were the correlates of physical violence among 13-15-year-olds (10). Another study in Sri Lanka found harsh disciplinary practices of parents and poor attachment of children to homes to be risk factors for youth violence (11). Additionally, higher use of corporal punishment by teachers and school principals in Sri Lanka has been identified as a risk factor for violence among students (11,18,19).

Youth violence has adverse and long-term effects on the overall wellbeing of young people going beyond the physical consequences (2). It results in more than 400 000 nonfatal injuries each year (20,21). When youth violence is not fatal, it has adverse impacts on the physical, psychological, and social functioning of a person (2). Academic failures, poor school attendance, and school dropouts are also caused by exposure to youth violence (20,21). Youth who engage in one type of violent act tend to commit other violent and nonviolent offences and other maladaptive behaviours such as smoking, substance abuse or dependence, sexual promiscuity, and risky sexual behaviours (15,21,22). Youth violence may become a burden to entire communities, as it increases healthcare costs and costs for justice services, reduces productivity and property value, and disrupts social services (2,21).

More research on youth violence has been conducted in high-income countries (HICs) (23,24), and limited studies have been conducted on mitigating and preventing violence in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (25). The largest efforts to reduce youth violence and more research have to be conducted in countries where rates of violence are highest and resources are lowest (23,26). Therefore, it should be a priority to advance research on youth violence prevention in LMICs, as the rates of youth violence are high in LMICs and pose a huge burden on victims, communities, the economy, and health systems in those countries (24). Even in the Sri Lankan context, GSHS in 2016 reported unacceptably higher rates of violence (7). Thus, the present study conducted in Sri Lanka will contribute to filling that gap in the literature.

Violence is inherent in social relations and institutions (27). There is no empirical evidence on violence in Sri Lankan technical colleges. Thus, the present study conducted in a Sri Lankan technical college will add new information to the literature. In general, students who fail to continue their studies in schools enroll (28) in Sri Lankan technical colleges that lie between schools and state universities. Most of the students of technical and vocational training institutes in Sri Lanka come from “more socio-economically vulnerable segments of society” (3). The training received had not been useful for a majority of the trainees in Sri Lankan technical and vocational training institutes to find employment opportunities (28). Thus, these students have been associated with a greater number of risk factors for violence compared to school or university students, where exposure to multiple risk factors increases the chances of becoming violent (29).

According to the ecological model, youth violence is an outcome of an interplay of individual, relationship, and societal factors (5,30). It is still questionable what the reasons behind the incidents of youth violence are and why youth choose violence to solve their problems (31). Social determinants of violence should be addressed in the efforts of preventing youth violence (2). Highly effective youth violence prevention programs address both individual and environmental risk factors, build competencies of youth and improve the social climate of schools (13). Therefore, identifying the determinants of youth violence from the perspectives of young people is crucial before designing interventions. Thus, the present study aimed to identify the determinants of youth violence from the perspectives of students and key informants of a Sri Lankan technical college.

Research approach

This was a qualitative study conducted using the participatory action research (PAR) approach. The PAR considers study participants as research collaborators (32) and involves them in every step of the research (33,34). Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is the youth-centred version of PAR that emphasizes promoting the power and voice of marginalized youth groups (35,36). Currently, more attention is being paid to youth participation in research and evaluation (37). The YPAR approach that joins the youths and adult researchers is receiving attention as an effective approach to preventing risky behaviours of youth, such as unsafe sexual behaviours, bullying, and gang violence (38,39). Therefore, the PAR approach was used in the present study, and youths were actively involved in research activities such as developing data collection tools, data collection, and analysis in line with PAR principles.

Study setting and population

Out of the 39 technical colleges in Sri Lanka that are governed by the Department of Technical Education and Training of the State Ministry of Skills Development, Vocational Education, Research and Innovation (40), one technical college in the Matale district was selected as the study setting. The criteria considered in selecting the setting were the availability of the two-year-long courses and the student count. Furthermore, the selected technical college was in an accessible location to the principal investigator (PI), which facilitated frequent visits. The study population was the students [15–29 years old] who remained at least for two years (who followed two-year-long courses) in the college from the onset of the study. This group included 74 students who followed the Higher National Diploma in Agriculture Production Technology.

Sampling and sample size

All students who followed two-year-long courses were considered eligible to participate in the study. There were no specific exclusion criteria other than not providing consent to take part in the study. Participant recruitment was performed by the PI by inviting all eligible students and providing them with information about the study after obtaining permission from relevant authorities.

All eligible students consented to participate in the study and the sample size was 74 students who followed the Higher National Diploma in Agriculture Production Technology. The student distribution is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Student distribution

Junior batch	22 girls	14 boys	36
Senior batch	26 girls	12 boys	38
Total	48 girls	26 boys	74

Developing data collection tools

Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) were the methods of data collection in the present study. Study participants were also involved in developing data collection tools. Before involving participants in developing the tools, the academic research team developed the tools based on the literature. Later, an interactive discussion was conducted with participants for approximately 60 minutes about ‘the research, the action research and their role as the collaborators in the study’. This discussion helped them understand the scope of the research, their contribution to the process, and how and why they need to be actively involved as collaborators in each stage of the study.

Thereafter, the participants were involved with the PI in developing the data collection tools in two interactive discussions, each of approximately 60 minutes. The PI shared and discussed the questions developed by students among the research team and made modifications where necessary in the predeveloped data collection tools.

Data collection

The data were collected until saturation and were completed with 04 FGDs (02 FGDs with the junior class and the other 02 FGDs with the senior class) and 07 KIIs. The interviewed key informants were the principal, course coordinator, lecturer, instructor, lab assistant, farm manager, and field assistant. The FGDs and KIIs were conducted by the PI, and a group of eight students was trained and involved as the note-takers for the FGDs. This group of eight students was selected collectively by students and the PI based on their apparent enthusiasm for the study. The participants assisted the PI in selecting the key informants to be interviewed. The FGDs and KIIs were conducted in the native language (Sinhala) on convenient dates, times, and venues for participants. Each interview/discussion took approximately 60-90 minutes.

Data analysis

The FGDs and KIIs were audio-recorded and transcribed. The analysis was performed using the Braun and Clarke, 2006 (41) thematic analysis method as a manual process mainly by the academic research team using the original transcripts which were in Sinhala. The determinants identified at the preliminary stage were shared with the participants while maintaining anonymity. They were allowed to further explain and comment on the determinants involved in data analysis. Participants agreed with the initial findings and provided positive feedback. Then, the themes and sub-themes were searched, reviewed, and defined. The needed information such as themes, sub-themes, and relevant quotes was translated later into English.

Background of the study participants

All students were in the age range of 20–27 years, and everyone had studied up to Grade 13 at school. The majority of the sample was Sinhalese (97.3%) and Buddhists (95.9%). Many students were living in households with a monthly income between 20 000–30 000 LKR [66–99 USD] (40.5%). The parents of a higher proportion of students were married (67.6%), and almost all students (98.6%) were unmarried at the time of the study. The socio-demographic data of the participants are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Socio-demographic data of the participants
Socio-demographic data (n = 74)
		Number	%
Age	20–21 years	19	25.7
	22–23 years	38	51.4
	24–25 years	15	20.3
	26–27 years	02	2.7
Gender	Male	26	35.1
Gender	Female	48	64.9
Schooled up to grade	Grade 13	74	100
Ethnicity	Sinhala	72	97.3
	Tamil	01	1.4
	Muslim	01	1.4
Religion	Buddhism	71	95.9
	Hindu	01	1.4
	Christian	01	1.4
	Islam	01	1.4
Household monthly income in LKR	Below 5000	04	5.4
	5000–10000	01	1.4
	10000–20000	18	24.3
	20000–30000	30	40.5
	30000–40000	09	12.2
	40000–50000	08	10.8
	Above 50000	04	5.4
Students’ marital status	Unmarried	73	98.6
Students’ marital status	Not mentioned	01	1.4
Parental marital status	Married	50	67.6
	Divorced	05	6.8
	Widowed	13	17.6
	Separated	04	5.4
	Remarried	02	2.7

All of the interviewed key informants were permanent employees in the college with a service period of five years or more. They were Sinhalese and Buddhists, and were in the age range of 29–57 years.

The findings are presented under five major themes; individual-level determinants, family-level determinants, school-level determinants, determinants specific to the technical college, and societal-level determinants. The words spoken by participants supporting these themes are given italicised; quotes made by students are given with the participant number (B1, G1, etc., where ‘B’ stands for Boy and ‘G’ stands for Girl) alongside the respective FGD number and whether the FGD was with junior or senior class (ex: G1, FGD 01- Junior) and the quotes made by key informants are given with the affiliation (ex: Principal).

Theme 01: Individual-level determinants

I. Poor awareness

All of the participants reported that youths have inadequate awareness of the harm associated with violence. Thus, youth are making decisions favouring violence without knowing the harm.

“Youth do not know the consequences of engaging in violence, how their future is destroyed and how it affects their families” (B1, FGD 04- Senior).

“At a young age, youth make quick decisions without thinking or knowing its adverse consequences” (Course Coordinator).

“Even if they make a small problem in an educational institution like this, it can affect their entire life because they may be suspended from the course, then, exams will be banned. However, we do not see that they have understood it” (Field Assistant).

II. Inability to bear being defeated

Students and some key informants explained that most young people become violent in cases where they cannot bear defeat. They mentioned it as a fault in their personality.

“That is because they cannot bear the defeat. Everyone wants to win, and when that hope is lost, problems arise” (B2, FGD 04- Senior).

“When young people cannot get their ideology won and if they do not like others’ ideologies..., they cannot bear that defeat. That happened in ‘aragalaya’ [‘the struggle of people’, which was a collective protest by some Sri Lankans against the ruling party in 2022]. It was about political ideologies. However, the same thing happens in the institutions and courses even though it is not political” (Course Coordinator).

III. Frequent victimization

Several key informants discussed frequent victimization by violence as a factor for youth violence. They mentioned that victims develop the perception of taking revenge over time.

“If he is always being bothered.., A person who is always a victim, gets used to it and somehow gets out of it, his mentality is formed to take revenge. Definitely, he gives ‘a return’” (Lab Assistant).

IV. Unemployment

All of the participants described unemployment as a major determinant of youth violence. Unemployment makes youth unrest, and it motivates youths to engage in antisocial behaviours, organize protests against the government, and ultimately become violent.

“People who beat others and people who get into fights with others do not have much to do, they have no jobs. Those people have nothing to do, so they fight with others and do protests” (Lab Assistant).

V. Psychological stress

Students explained that if youth are stressed due to some reason, they engage in more violence than others. Key informants also described that if youths are “mentally disorganized” or stressed, they engage in violence.

“If young people are under stress due to anything such as the instability in the country, or any of their personal issues, they can become violent. This pressure can make them violent” (Course Coordinator).

VI. Use of substances of abuse

Participants mentioned that young people are using different types of drugs, and some have been addicted. Violence was identified as closely associated with drug use by students, and they mentioned that some of the young perpetrators of crimes are either drug dealers or users.

Key informants also reported that youths are captured easily by drug dealers, and drug use is a major determinant of youth violence.

“Use of drugs is a major cause for violence. Alcohol is the reason for nearly eighty percent of fights among youth” (Lab Assistant).

“Now, drugs are easily available. The terrible issue is that drug dealers know whom to be targeted, and they capture school children 14–15 years of age and youth. There are instances that students who had used drugs had engaged in fights with others in the technical college” (Course Coordinator).

Theme 02: Family-level determinants

I. Poor parental affection, guidance, and parenting skills

Students described that some children do not receive adequate care and affection from their parents. Furthermore, key informants added that poor parenting skills also contribute to making children violent. They explained that some parents become very strict with their children, and others do not value the independence of their children. They also mentioned that the culture in Asian countries is a contributing factor to poor parenting skills.

“Some parents instruct children like ‘Principals’. They are very strict and give orders to children. That is what their children see for a long time, and when children become older and go to the society, they also do the same” (Principal).

“Some parents do not let their children go out of home. Now they should be independent. We see this especially in Asian countries, not in the Western world. Then, when they come to boarding, it is a big issue for them. They become victims due to lack of skills” (Course Coordinator).

II. Distorted family connections and family disruption

Some students and key informants described that most young people become detached from their parents and families. Parents appear not to look into their activities. Boys especially lose their connections with their families at a young age and become affiliated with anti-social gangs and engage in violence.

“Parents do not know what young people do. If a young boy was beaten, his parents do not know the reason for that. Usually, boys do not divulge such things at home” (Field Assistant).

A few key informants mentioned that the financial constraints have limited the families to one or two children because parents are not in a position to fulfil the needs of their children. It has damaged the usually protective extended family system in Sri Lanka. Ultimately, this shrinkage of the families, busy schedules of parents, and distorted family connections have made young people develop personalities favouring violence, making decisions on their own in instances where they are incapable of doing so and engaging in violence.

“Now, it is not like in the past, there are only one or two children in a family. Parents and children are not close to each other. Parents are very busy today. It has made young people violent” (Course Coordinator).

Key informants identified family disruption as a risk factor for youth violence. They explained that if parents are divorced or separated, children are not receiving proper care at home. Most children from disrupted families become violent later at a young age. Furthermore, they mentioned that children in disrupted families are sometimes in the hatred of their parents, which also makes them violent.

“If children have experienced family problems such as divorce of their parents, such children become violent later” (Student Counsellor).

“Children with good families are also involved in violence and ragging, but they do not cross the boundaries. However, we have seen that children from disrupted families do ragging to its extreme” (Course Coordinator).

III. Pressure on education for children by parents

All of the participants reported that children are forced to study by their parents. Thus, children experience severe pressure from their homes. This makes children deprived of their freedom at home, and opportunities to engage in sports or extracurricular activities and it contributes to developing stress and hatred among them, which later turns into violence.

“The pressure on some children for a long time for education is a problem. Those children are squeezed under that unnecessary pressure. Then the person under pressure can behave violently in society” (Principal).

“Children who have been pressured only for education and who have not done sports or any other extracurricular activity have a problem moving in society. They do not have good personalities. They can both perpetrate or victimize violence” (Course Coordinator).

IV. Witnessing domestic violence as a child

According to students and key informants, if youth witness violence at home, especially intimate partner violence between parents, they learn violence as a method of solving problems and use it in society as well. Furthermore, witnessing domestic violence stresses children and it leads to later violence.

“If family members are fighting, they see that, when they go to another place, they think that is the best action that they can take to solve any problem” (G6, FGD 03- Senior).

“Children spend most of their time at home, then they see the way their parents deal with each other. If violence is seen between parents, then they try to apply the same method when they go to another place” (Instructor).

V. Discrimination within the family

According to students, if there is a higher number of children in a family, some children are discriminated against for many reasons such as gender, education performance, and physical appearance. It makes them inculcate attitudes that provoke violence since childhood.

“In some houses, when there are three or four children, if there is a child who can study well, the parents stay with him, the other one is left behind, and these things contribute to developing violence” (G6, FGD 03- Senior).

Students explained that in most families, children are compared with others by parents for their skills or education performance. This unhealthy comparison also makes some children stigmatized and violent.

“The intention to take revenge is formed because of the comparison of children with others, to put the other person down, there is that intention since childhood” (G7, FGD 03- Senior).

Theme 03: School-level determinants

I. School dropout

A majority of participants described school dropout and a low level of education or illiteracy as factors that contribute to developing violence among youth. Students mentioned that children who drop out of their schools often associate with youth who are older than them, affiliate with street gangs, and engage in acts of violence. Most key informants also added less intelligence and poor discipline associated with early school dropout as factors contributing to violence among young people. They also reported technical colleges as settings with a higher chance for violence to occur because students who drop out of their schools usually enter technical colleges.

“Usually, students who drop out of their schools are not good in education and who cannot enter state universities end up here [technical colleges]. When such a group meets.., we have to expect violence” (Instructor).

“Most of the people who come here [technical colleges] are those who dropped out of school. We usually call them dropouts. That means we have to expect some violence from them. They try to override others and be heroes using violence” (Lab Assistant).

II. Peer influences

All of the participants described that most young people talk about the incidents of violence they experienced with their peers. According to students, most of their friends have approved of their violent behaviours, and friends’ responses have provoked violence. Some youths are members of gangs and they associate with delinquent peers. Thus, sometimes they become involved in gang fights because of peer influences.

“Sometimes, we do not want to fight, but... there are instances where we get involved in fights because our gang wants it” (B7, FGD 04- Senior).

“For example, now if one of my friends has a problem, I go, there is such a thing at a young age, “we will be together and we all are one”. Then, they make conflicts” (Farm Manager).

Some key informants also said that peer responses provoke violence among youth, and if anyone created a conflict with a member of their gang, most of the young people gang up and fight for their member.

“I think that most of their friends are encouraging them to continue with violence. It is rare you find someone who says no (to fights)” (Principal).

"Usually, students advise their friends to fight back. I also have heard that they say “there is a man in the town, I know him, let’s take his support and will give them ‘a return’” (Instructor).

“Young people always do things for their friends and their group. They do not think about whether it is right or wrong. Then, if somebody beat one of their friends, they also ‘give a return’. They believe that is friendship” (Farm Manager).

Some key informants mentioned that there are leaders in youth gangs who influence others and get others also involved in fights.

“When we take a youth gang as an example, someone acts as the head of it. After that, he always tries to bring everyone else under his control. He tells others that “we should fight”, he has subversive behaviour [laughs]” (Field Assistant).

III. Discrimination at school

Students and key informants described that if children were discriminated against at school due to any reason by their peers or teachers, those children would become violent once they become young adults.

“In some schools, from the primary classes, there are things like giving someone more attention and marginalizing someone else” (G3, FGD 03- Senior).

“Rich children are treated in one-way, poor children are treated in another way and there are many such things in schools” (G10, FGD 01- Junior).

“Students who have been discriminated against at school become violent here [technical college]. Since they did not receive a chance at school, they like to get it here and be a bully. They use the “rag season” here to become prominent characters” (Course Coordinator).

Furthermore, students explained that discrimination at school makes children isolated and causes them to have a lesser number of friends. Isolation makes them stressed and they find no one to talk about their problems. This in turn would ultimately make them violent.

“Classmates have ostracised him. Then, he has no one to tell his problem. Therefore, he becomes aggressive” (G5, FGD 03- Senior).

IV. Competitive education system

According to the majority of participants, the education system in Sri Lanka has exerted huge pressure on children and has made children busy and frustrated. Many key informants criticised the education system in Sri Lanka stating that it does not teach discipline, values, and creativity to children while appreciating the education system in developed countries. Key informants mentioned that our education system always creates competition among children, and this competition makes children stressed and develops attitudes favourable to violence among children. This whole scenario gives rise to unrest among youth, makes them aggressive, contributes to developing mental health disorders, and provokes violence which can be both self-directed and interpersonal in the long run.

“I do not accept the Sri Lankan education system. Our education does not teach children discipline or creativity. It is of no use even if children pass examinations without developing good qualities in them. That is why these social problems such as violence occur” (Course Coordinator).

“Usually, when we were kids, we played till night after school. We had no tuition classes. However, now children have tuition classes from morning to around five in the evening. This routine is not healthy. Children have no “relaxed mind”, and with that, they can be violent” (Student Counsellor).

Theme 04: Determinants specific to the technical college

I. Subculture

Subculture emerged as one of the important determinants of violence in the college. Students described that college has its own subculture and it is passed from generation to generation. They understood it as something which is not a rule or enforced legally.

“We receive the subculture from our seniors. It is passing from generation to generation and it is not a rule” (B7, FGD 04- Seniors).

“Subculture is not a rule. It has been developed in previous batches and we do not know about its origin. However, it is going on as it is” (G5, FGD 01- Junior).

Five categories emerged under the sub-theme ‘subculture’ as perceptions favouring violence associated with the subculture, pressure to align with the subculture, power, unity or batch-fit, and discouraging reporting of violence by the subculture.

1. Perceptions favouring violence associated with the subculture

Three sub-categories of perceptions were derived from the analysis: the perceived responsibility to continue the subculture, justification of subculture and associated violence, and normalization of the violence associated with the subculture.

Perceived responsibility to continue the subculture:

Most students, both juniors and seniors, had a strong intention to continue the activities they perceived as part of the subculture even though it provoked violence, and they perceived it as one of their responsibilities.

“That means, there is a way they [seniors] have done, we should do the same, it is our responsibility if we follow this course” (G4, FGD 01- Junior).

Furthermore, senior students perceived it as a responsibility to teach subculture to juniors.

“Generally, there is a culture in this [technical college], we should teach it to our juniors” (B3, FGD 04- Senior).

Justification of the subculture and associated violence:

Both victims and perpetrators identified positives in the subculture even though violence was an integrated component of it. Students described that the subculture gives rise to and maintains the “batch-fit” (unity within the batch) and develops more relationships between batches over time.

“We were alone in the beginning; I was the only one from (a distant district in Sri Lanka) and I had no friends. However, after being here for two or three months, I developed good relationships with others. This was due to the subculture that exists here” (B4, FGD 04- Senior).

Key informants also valued subculture as a system that develops relationships and discipline among students even though it has violence.

“Subculture helps developing relationships among students. I do not mean ‘being inhumane’, but… later, juniors also come to the point where it [subculture] does not matter. I cannot even say that it is good and I cannot approve of it as a teacher. However, there are instances, where it [subculture] is right [laughs]” (Instructor).

“We are not going to change subculture. That means, it has a “rag” season for three months and it develops discipline among students” (Farm Manager).

Students considered being adjusted to the subculture and victimized by violence will be helpful for them to face future social challenges successfully. In that sense, they justified violence associated with the subculture, and they were bound to be victims.

“We feel upset when seniors scream at us, but it is good for our future. Then, we can face any problem in the future” (G4, FGD 01- Junior).

“It is better if we can bear the hardships in the workplace. That means if someone blamed us, it is good if we can bear it. Thus, it [ragging which is a part of the subculture] has value. From that point of view, I think violence is good” (B6, FGD 02- Junior).

“If they [juniors] do not learn to behave properly here [technical college], even if they get a job, they will not be able to work there” (B5, FGD 04- Senior).

Normalization of the violence associated with the subculture:

Junior students mentioned that now the violence associated with the subculture has been normalized, and it is not a big issue for them. They have come to accept violence as part of the subculture.

“Our seniors scold us, then it was difficult for us to bear it in the beginning, but now we are used to it” (B2, FGD 02- Junior).

“At the beginning, I worried what other people would think of me and whether I might cry when seniors scold me. Now it is normal and okay. It does not matter if they scold us” (G4, FGD 01- Junior).

2. Pressure to align with the subculture

Refusing or nonalignment with the subculture has been a reason for violence and “even some seniors do not like the subculture”, junior students said. However, everyone is somehow pressured to align with the subculture either with or without their consent.

“One of our senior brothers had objected to ragging. Thus, the super seniors had beaten him” (B2, FGD 02- Junior).

“The reason for that [a fight between two batches] may be transgressing the subculture [everyone laughs]” (G7, FGD 01- Junior).

“Recently, there was a senior-junior conflict, the cause was overriding the subculture” (Course Coordinator).

3. Power

Three sub-categories of power emerged from data: seniority/respect, gender, and geographic location.

Seniority/respect:

Maintaining seniority or respect was reflected as a major concern among senior students as a component of the subculture, and a huge power gap was observed between senior and junior students. According to junior students, if seniors perceive any junior student as equal or superior to them, seniors feel insecure and use violence to control his behaviour. Furthermore, junior students and some key informants mentioned that seniors expect juniors to always listen, obey, respect, and be afraid of them; if not, seniors consider such students to be a threat to them.

“The seniors beat our batch representative because he speaks straight, if seniors say something wrong, he says ‘no, it is not like that’” (G6, FGD 01- Junior).

“They [seniors] believe that we [juniors] should listen to what they say” (B7, FGD 02- Junior).

“Seniors say that “juniors didn’t respect us. We told them more than once, about their discipline. They did not accept it. Therefore, we got angry” (Field Assistant).

Junior students and key informants described seniors’ behaviour in this respect as passing their own distressing experiences to juniors and that seniors want to see the newcomers also undergoing the same hardships. That was mentioned as a way they maintain seniority.

“I think, our seniors scream at us [juniors] and make us mentally down because they also experienced the same thing from their seniors” (G7, FGD 01- Junior).

“Senior students think ‘when we were in tec [technical college], it was not like this. You also should undergo the same hardships as us, then only you learn. Then only, they have a value of it’” (Field Assistant).

Gender:

The power difference between girls and boys was found to be closely associated with subculture. Girls had some specific rules, such as wearing long skirts and slippers (flip flops) and braiding hair, as part of the subculture where boys did not have to follow such rules. Furthermore, girls were unhappy with the way they were treated by boys in their class. Girls described boys as perceiving it as a responsibility to take care of girls in the class and they misused it to control girls’ behaviour unnecessarily. However, girls were not protesting this as they were subjected to the verbal violence of boys.

“We [girls] feel that we are not allowed to speak even, but it is okay for boys to shout in the class. However, we do not tell it to them [boys]. If we tell it, they may say something else to quieten us. Thus, we keep quiet” (G9, FGD 01- Junior).

Geographic location:

Most key informants described how students from areas close to the technical college become dominant and exert power over the other students who attend college from distant areas. They further mentioned that the local students are not ready to listen to others and they try to be the “heroes” in the college. The power gap linked with the geographic location, which is fuelled by the subculture, was reported to exist to a considerable extent, leading to many conflicts in the college.

“Most of the local boys think that they can do anything because those guys are from the neighbourhood. That is normal in all courses” (Lab Assistant).

“There are students here from all over Sri Lanka. Then, there is a problem: the students from this local area think that “this is our village, others cannot advise or override us”. Actually, this issue is not small, this exists to a certain extent” (Field Assistant).

“If any student said something bad to a local student, it gives rise to problems. The local students have developed a small ‘culture’. That is accepted in this subculture” (Instructor).

4. Unity or ‘batch-fit’

Developing unity or the “batch-fit” (unity within the batch) was mentioned as one of the main objectives of the subculture. Key informants mentioned that the “batch-fit” that students develop as a result of the subculture also contributes to violence in the college.

“If there is a problem between two classes, the students of that class try to protect their colleagues because of the “batch-ft”, sometimes, “batch-fit” is a problem as they become blind to the correct action” (Lab Assistant).

Boys described girls in their batch as colleagues who are always with them whenever a problem arises because of the “batch-fit”. However, from the point of view of boys, it was reflected that girls agree with and support their violent behaviours as well because of the “batch-fit”.

“We have “batch-fit” in any problem. We have our girls [girls in the class] with us, in any issue. They also do what we do. If we do something, girls are definitely with us [everyone laughs] whether it is right or wrong” (B1, FGD 04- Senior).

5. Discouraging reporting of violence by the subculture

The reporting of violence associated with subculture to teachers and the principal has been discouraged by labelling it as a “betrayal”. Key informants mentioned that victims are usually unwilling to report incidents of violence to teachers because others question them and label it a “betrayal”. Thus, reporting itself has been a reason for fights among students.

“It is also called a betrayal in the subculture. If anyone reported it to teachers, others question his behaviour and that person becomes a ‘joker’ among others” (Student Counsellor).

“There have been fights when any student reported an issue to a teacher because others ask ‘why did you tell that’” (Instructor).

“They do not betray…, thus, no one speaks the truth. This prevents us from taking action against violence” (Course Coordinator).

II. Diversity among students

A majority of key informants revealed significant diversity among students in the technical college in terms of age, level of education, and socio-economic background. This in turn was also thought of as a factor that promotes violence.

“The disparity is very high here [technical college]. Some have passed O/L (Ordinary Level), and some have passed A/L (Advanced Level). Then, there are students coming from different cultures; next, students come from different environments. This diversity provokes violence” (Principal).

“In a technical college, there are poor students, as well as students who come from other different social strata. Thus, there is a large difference, and there are problematic situations in these students’ family backgrounds. These differences give rise to violence” (Student Counsellor).

Theme 05: Societal-level determinants

I. Social discrimination, disadvantage, disparity, and inequity

According to students and key informants, if youth experience social discrimination for a long period, and if they lose care and freedom in society as well, they develop a hatred of society, which in turn leads to violence.

“When youths are stigmatized in society, they have no one to talk about their problems. Then, they take the responsibility of solving it anyhow” (Field Assistant).

“Because some youths do not have protection and freedom in the environment they live in, they develop hatred towards society” (B7, FGD 04- Senior).

Most of the participants reported that some children have been differently treated in society since childhood for many reasons. This stigmatization leads to later violence.

“If there is a beautiful child, others cuddle him. Then, the other not-so-attractive child feels that he is stigmatized and that child has more tendency to be violent later” (G3, FGD 01- Junior).

Students reported that if any perpetrator of violence is trying to correct or change his behaviour, he is not allowed to do so. Society continues discriminating against him and demotivating him coming out from violence.

“Perpetrators are not given a chance to correct themselves, if someone who was with bad people tries to correct or change his behaviour for some reason, there are instances that others ‘pull from his leg’ [not allowed]” (G4, FGD 03- Senior).

A majority of participants reported that financial constraints and economic disadvantage are also associated with discrimination and youth violence. Youths try somehow to earn more money and then engage in drug dealing and other antisocial activities in which violence is an integral component.

“People are separated as the rich and the poor, and poor people are marginalized. This makes them do anything to earn money” (G6, FGD 03- Senior).

“Money has come to the fore in society. Therefore, young people do anything to earn money. There is a lot of market for things like drugs to earn more money” (B3, FGD 02- Junior).

Some key informants described disparities in the economy and social class as well as inequity in access to education as highly prevalent in LMICs, including Sri Lanka. In their opinion, these disparities lead youth in these countries to engage in violence as a result and as a response to it.

“In countries like ours, we clearly see a disparity in the economy and people are divided into social classes. This makes youth use violence to respond to it” (Principal).

II. Increase in the requirements and change in the goals of youth

Some key informants mentioned that young people now have increased expectations and perceived wants with the new trends and globalization. Thus, when youth try to fulfil their wishes in any manner, violence can also be an option. Moreover, they mentioned that these requirements might be increased in the future and that the goals of youths may also change. Then, violence can be an integrated component of that “complexity”.

“The life goals of youths are changing. For example, young people these days try to do a course and go for a foreign job somehow. However, a few years ago, we did not see that. With these changes, they can be violent when they cannot achieve their targets” (Course Coordinator).

III. Justification, glamorization, and normalization of violence

1. Justification of violence

Students and some key informants mentioned that violence is justified in society in terms of obtaining social justice, fairness, and equity. Most students explained violence as a good method of overcoming social injustice, solving problems, and asserting their rights. Moreover, they identified and justified the use of violence as a way to cope with stress.

“They [perpetrators of violence] think that it [violence] is the best way to solve problems” (G1, FGD 03- Senior).

“People who commit violent acts may release their stress in that way. If someone has any stress, he may enjoy hitting someone” (G6, FGD 01- Junior).

“A person can be violent against an injustice that happened to him or the society. One of the best examples is this recent ‘aragalaya’ [‘the struggle of people’, which was a collective protest by some Sri Lankans against the ruling party in 2022]. We cannot say that is wrong. When young people do not receive a fair solution to their problems from the responsible persons, violence can be an option” (Course Coordinator).

Some key informants justified having a small amount of violence for survival.

“Both having and not having violence cause problems. If not (using violence), there is a story, ‘cobra is also taken to tie the wood’ [a Sinhala idiom- meaning that a cobra which would not bite will be used for tying up a bunch of firewood sticks]. Thus, it should also bite once in a while. Violence is also the same” (Instructor).

“What is said should not be accepted as such. Then, I see it [violence] as a positive thing. When we become the humblest group, others take advantage of us. That means, when we see from the side of students, there are times when some students [who have committed the acts of violence] are right...” (Lab Assistant).

Several key informants identified violence as essential for masculinity and to obtain life experience.

“However, it seems that there should be some violence as well, isn’t it? Or else it is not boyhood [boys], it is not fighting.., but to a certain extent…” (Lab Assistant).

“Definitely, a young person should face such a thing [an act of violence] at least once in his lifetime. Then only, he gets some life experience. It is not to make a big issue out of it, but to experience it to a ‘normal’ level” (Field Assistant).

Moreover, students justified the use of violence to secure their self-respect or pride.

“Everyone has their own value and self-respect. If someone damages our self-respect, we have to somehow get it back” (G6, FGD 03- Senior).

2. Glamorization of violence

Students and key informants described that violence is glamorized among youth and that an attractive image is created around the perpetrator.

“Some youths try to be prominent somehow in their group. Some try to show that ‘he is the one’” (B6, FGD 04- Senior).

“Trying to be a bully, a hero through the use of violence- those are the major causes of violence. Those who did it [any act of violence] [laughs] have come to the level of a hero. They talk in that way; we can decide that they have done it from the tone they speak” (Lab Assistant).

“Young people always try to be “demanding”. Some students want attention, they have some drama and like to be college heroes. Recently, there was such an incident” (Course Coordinator).

Students described that youth normally follow popular people or celebrities and use violence to be like them. According to students and key informants, the media plays a key role in glamorizing violence.

“If someone is following a popular figure and if that celebrity is using violence either in his movies or real life, some youth also imitate his violent behaviour” (G7, FGD 03- Senior).

“Violence is there in many mobile games and those games can change the minds of young people. Some youth try to replicate them in real life” (Course Coordinator).

3. Normalization of violence

Participants described some perceptions and characteristics specific to youth that make them different from the rest of the population, provoke more violence among them and make violence a usual behaviour in their lives. Students and key informants perceived youth as a group who have quick temper, more aggressiveness, and no patience, therefore violence was perceived as something normal among them.

“Youth are very impulsive and aggressive, they are quick to release aggression” (G1, FGD 03- Senior).

“Young people are more impulsive, and less experienced. Therefore, violence and conflicts are more common among them” (Student Counsellor).

Furthermore, students and key informants mentioned that youth, especially boys usually do not like to “second” (be belittled) or be submissive to anyone and depend on anyone. This makes violence a common behaviour among them.

“Youth do not like to be subordinated to someone else” (B7, FGD 04- Senior).

“Usually, a boy dislikes being subordinated to another boy” (Farm Manager).

Students described that youth are willing to develop with self-courage and stand out of the tradition. These features of youth make violence an integrated part of their behaviours.

“Youth like to go beyond or against the tradition. Thus, they do not like to accept others’ opinions” (B5, FGD 04- Senior).

“They [youth] do not like to be restricted by barriers, they want to break away” (B6, FGD 04- Senior).

Furthermore, students reported that youth think “I am superior to others” (G10, FGD 03- Senior) and are not willing to accept their faults or respect others’ opinions. These perceptions also normalize violence among youth.

“They [youth] do not want to see their own mistakes, that means they do not want to admit that even if they made a mistake” (G5, FGD 03- Senior).

“The main reason for this [violence] is not being able to respect each other's opinions, but working only according to one's own opinion” (B2, FGD 02- Junior).

“Generally, after reaching the age of 18, no matter what others say, only their opinion is respected” (B7, FGD 04- Senior).

IV. Gaps in law enforcement

Students described that the law is not properly enforced against the perpetrators of violence, and it makes youth become disrespectful of the law and engage in more violence.

“The young people see criminals and people who have been involved in corruption cases live well and freely in society without getting proper punishment. Then, they also think that ‘we can live free no matter what we do’” (G3, FGD 03- Senior).

Several key informants also recognized the importance of punishment for perpetrators of violence. Moreover, they highlighted that the law is not equally enforced in Asian countries and that youth are the most sensitive group to it. Thus, youth use violence to bring up these “system changes”.

“In Asian countries, we feel that the laws are not enforced equally. Systems are also not developed. Then, even against such things, the young people use violence because they quickly feel it and become very sensitive” (Principal).

V. Socio-political instabilities and the rise of inflation

A majority of key informants described that Sri Lanka, being an LMIC is facing many economic issues, and those have been made worse by the current socio-political instability. They described that inflation is rising in the country and it has made youth unemployed and frustrated. Youth were identified as the group most affected by instability, which pushed youth to use violence as a response to it and to win their rights. Furthermore, they described that even some politicians take advantage of the situation, and use youth group for their political advantage, push their agendas, and violence.

“With the political instability, and the rise of inflation, everyone including youth are in trouble. Some have lost their jobs, and some are unable to get jobs. Thus, in such a situation, violence can erupt” (Course Coordinator).

“Youth are the most sensitive group to this instability and economic crisis because their dreams have been shattered. Then, to make their future clear, they use different methods, one option can be the use of violence” (Student Counsellor).

Youths have often been described as the “violent” or “frustrated” population segment (3). The present study aimed to identify determinants of youth violence with the participation of a group of young students and key informants from a Sri Lankan technical college. The qualitative approach allowed us to explore a wide range of determinants both general and specific to youth in Sri Lankan technical colleges. The identification of determinants from the perspectives of both senior and junior students, women and men, and key informants other than youth helped us to provide a clear picture of different perceptions and viewpoints about violence. In the present study, a comprehensive picture of the determinants could be provided, while some of the determinants had been previously identified in the literature.

As in previous studies, participants in the present study also reported unemployment and psychological stress as factors that lead to violence. According to the literature, unemployment/joblessness and income inequality are associated with youth violence (2, 42, 43). Having mental health issues has also been an additional correlate of physical violence, and many studies have found an association between mental health issues and the occurrence of peer violence (15, 44). The participants also reported substance abuse as a determinant of youth violence, which has also been reported in the previous literature (2, 13, 29).

Many family-level determinants of violence identified in the present study were also reported in previous studies. For example witnessing domestic violence, harsh disciplinary practices, inadequate parental supervision, and poor attachment to families have been found to be risk factors for youth violence in many studies (5, 11, 16, 45) Furthermore, lack of stability in homes and family disruption have also been found to lead to youth violence (14–16, 47). Consistent with findings from previous studies, peer influence emerged as a major school-level determinant of youth violence. Many studies have found peer influence/pressure, “having aggressive friends”, and associating with delinquent peers and antisocial personalities as risk factors for youth violence (16, 46, 48, 49).

The discrimination and disadvantage reported in the present study pervade the literature as risk factors for youth violence. Youth violence has been found to be highly prevalent among disadvantaged youth groups (50, 51). Isolation within the family, social exclusion, and economic inequalities also cause youth violence (43). Previous studies have also reported that youth who live in socio-economically challenging environments may feel that joining a gang or engaging in violent acts is their only option for survival (16, 47, 52, 53).

Attraction or the glamour attached to violence among youth was quite a new determinant that emerged from this study. Being exposed to violence displayed in media, which was found in previous studies (10, 52–55) to be a risk factor for youth violence, was also reported in the present study.

The previous literature also reported that immersion in a group subculture of violence may cause individuals to internalize the group values that are favourable to violence and behave accordingly (56). Although schools have been identified as important places and sources of youth violence in the literature (57, 58), little is known about the role played by subcultural norms and values in the development of violence in schools (59). Only a few studies have been conducted to assess the subculture of violence perspective in schools in countries such as the United States and Iceland, not in LMICs (60, 61). The idea that ragging in Sri Lankan universities is a component of university subculture pervades the literature (62). Qualitative approaches would be more appropriate for exploring the current status of subcultures of violence and cultural processes that lead to and maintain the acceptance of violence (63). Thus, the present study that explored the subculture of violence in college would contribute to filling that gap in the literature.

Additionally, the present study revealed many school and societal-level determinants prevailing in Sri Lanka, such as competitive education systems, disparities and inequities, gaps in law enforcement, and socio-political instabilities and the rise of inflation that lead to violence. Moreover, participants in the present study reported justification and normalization of violence in society as contributors to youth violence. These findings may contribute to the literature.

In line with the principles of PAR, study participants were actively involved in each step of the present study from the stage of developing data collection tools which was a key factor of success. Engaging participants in developing data collection tools, before the data collection helped to build an early familiarity and trust between researchers and participants, which increased credibility. Furthermore, the involvement of participants in the data collection and analysis improved the rigour by avoiding the potential biases made by the academic research team.

The selection of a technical college to which students who are socio-economically and educationally disadvantaged attend (3) is a strength of the study because youth violence is more prevalent among disadvantaged groups of youths (51). However, this is a small-scale study conducted in a single technical college, which is a limitation that may reduce the transferability of the findings. Anyway, the findings reported in the study are of higher importance to international and regional audiences to address youth violence in tertiary education institutes, and our aim was not to work with a representative sample but to explore determinants in a participatory manner with a group of selected study participants.

Violence, mainly ragging, is mostly found in universities or educational institutes throughout the world, making it an international phenomenon (62, 64). Even in Sri Lankan state universities, the ragging of freshers by senior students has been a regular issue (62, 65). When universities and tertiary education institutes of Sri Lanka are considered, there is an obvious gap in studies done on ragging which is a part of subculture (62, 66). Moreover, there is a lack of empirical evidence on violence in Sri Lankan technical colleges. Thus, the present study would help fill that gap.

The search for effective solutions to youth violence remains an enormous challenge, and there is an urgent need to resolve the problem of youth violence with the use of research-based approaches (13). The present study emphasizes the need to identify determinants of youth violence that may change with commercial and global trends before designing actions to address violence. Furthermore, the new and context-specific determinants of youth violence should be identified with active youth participation rather than working on the previously identified risk factors.

In summary, youth who participated in this study identified violence in their age group as a significant phenomenon in their environment that arise from many determinants that operate at different levels such as individual, family, school, and society. In this study, many determinants that contribute to youth violence could be explored from the perspectives of students and other key informants in a technical college. The qualitative approach supported the identification of a variety of determinants of youth violence and provided a comprehensive idea of the determinants. Furthermore, the participants improved their understanding of the determinants of youth violence as a result of the process. Certain determinants that were previously not well documented, such as subculture, came to the fore as a result of participatory exploration.

The key recommendations that can be drawn from the study are that the determinants of youth violence should be identified with young people before taking action to address violence, and its multifactorial nature should be considered in designing interventions. Setting specific factors such as subculture especially highlight the above point. Larger-scale multicentre studies using the PAR approach are recommended for interested researchers to explore more determinants of youth violence.

The evidence of the present study will contribute to addressing ragging and other forms of violence in tertiary education institutes in Sri Lanka and similar LMICs. Furthermore, the findings of this qualitative study can subsequently support the development of effective interventions and informing policies and legislation relevant to youth violence prevention, mainly in technical colleges, vocational training institutes, universities, and other tertiary education institutes in Sri Lanka and similar LMICs.

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

GSHS

Global School-based Student Health Survey

HIC

High-Income Country

KII

Key Informant Interview

LMIC

Low and Middle-Income Country

PAR

Participatory Action Research

Principal Investigator

YPAR

Youth Participatory Action Research

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Applied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka (Reference no: ERC/04/21), and administrative clearances were obtained from relevant authorities and the college. Participation in the study was an entirely voluntary decision by the potential study participants, and they were recruited with informed written consent. It has the potential to cause retraumatization among victims when they are engaged in this kind of sensitive topic. Thus, any participant with such an issue could be referred to our research team, which is composed of a psychiatrist and a person with a counselling background.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Not applicable. This was a self-funded study.

Authors' contributions

NR, KA, JDS, and GNDG designed the study. NR mainly implemented the study and collected data. All authors analysed the data. NR mainly wrote the article. All authors reviewed, read, and approved the final manuscript

Acknowledgements

We thank the principal, course coordinator, and academic and non-academic staff members of the study setting for their support in the implementation of the study. Additionally, we thank students and key informants for their active participation in the study.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Youth Violence. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/fastfact.html. Assessed 11 Jun 2023.
World Health Organization. Youth violence. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/youth-violence. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development. National youth policy of Sri Lanka. 2014. https://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Sri_Lanka_2014_National_Youth_Policy.pdf.
United Nations Children's Fund. Half of world’s teens experience peer violence in and around school. 2019. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/half-worlds-teens-experience-peer-violence-and-around-school-unicef. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
World Health Organization. World report on violence and health. 2002. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Swahn MH, Gressard L, Palmier JB, Yao H, Haberlen M. The prevalence of very frequent physical fighting among boys and girls in 27 countries and cities: Regional and gender differences. J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013.
Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. Global School-based Student Health Survey Sri Lanka. 2016. https://extranet.who.int/ncdsmicrodata/index.php/catalog/648. Assessed 17 Jun 2023.
Family Health Bureau. National youth health survey 2012/2013 Sri Lanka. 2015. http://www.fhb.health.gov.lk/images/FHBresources/AdolecentHealth/Publication/National Youth health survey 2012–2013(cover page – 58).pdf. Assessed 17 Jun 2023.
United Nations Children's Fund. National Survey on Emerging Issues among Adolescents in Sri Lanka. 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265022526_National_Survey_on_Emerging_Issues_among_Adolescents_in_Sri_Lanka. Assessed 21 Feb 2021.
Wijeratne MP, Seneviratne R, Gunawardena N, Lynch C, Sandøy IF, Ostbye T. Correlates of peer violence among 13- to 15-year-olds in Gampaha district schools in Sri Lanka: Findings from a comparison between violent and non-violent adolescents. SAGE Open. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014550616
Hewamalage AP. School violence among grade 10 students in Kesbewa education division in Sri Lanka. University of Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2010.
Fernando AD, Karunasekera W. Juvenile victimisation in a group of young Sri Lankan adults. Ceylon Med J. 2009;54(3):80–4.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, Executive Summary. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.
Dahlberg LL. Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors, and prevention approaches. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):259–72.
Farrington DP. Predictors, Causes, and Correlates of Male Youth Violence. Crime and Justice. 1998;24:421–75.
Witmer D. Causes of Youth Violence. 2019. https://www.verywellfamily.com/causes-of-youth-violence-2611437. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh Y-J, Hubbard A, Boyce; W Thomas. School bullying and youth violence causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior?. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1035–41.
Wijeratne MP. Interpersonal violence among 13–15 year old schooling adolescents in district of Gampaha. University of Colombo; 2012. http://librepository.pgim.cmb.ac.lk/handle/1/1062. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Wijeratne MP, Seneviratne R, Gunawardena N, Østbye T, Lynch C. Descriptive study of the psychosocial and physical environments of school in relation to violence among adolescents in the Gampaha District of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka J Child Heal. 2015;44(3):138.
Hagan J, Foster H. Youth violence and the end of adolescence. Am Sociol Rev. 2001;66(6):874–99.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Violence prevention: youth violence. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/index.html. Assessed 30 Oct 2020.
Rivara F, Adhia A, Lyons V, Massey A, Mills B, Morgan E, et al. The effects of violence on health. Health Aff. 2019;38(10):1622–9.
Krisch M, Eisner M, Mikton C, Butchart A. Global strategies to reduce violence by 50% in 30 years findings from the WHO and University of Cambridge- Global violence reduction conference 2014. 2015.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275209078_Global_Strategies_to_Reduce_Violence_by_50_in_30_Years. Assessed 19 Nov 2020.
Ribera OS, Trajtenberg N, Shenderovich Y, Murray J. Correlates of youth violence in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;49:101306.
Golshiri P, Farajzadegan Z, Tavakoli A, Heidari K. Youth violence and related risk factors: A cross-sectional study in 2800 adolescents. Adv Biomed Res. 2018;7(1):138.
Murray J, Cerqueira DR de C, Kahn T. Crime and violence in Brazil: Systematic review of time trends, prevalence rates and risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2013;18:471–83.
Zambeta E, Thoma D, Dakopoulou N, Varsopoulos V. Greek primary teachers’ work and life under restructuring. Professional experiences, knowledge and expertise in changing contexts. In: J Muller et al (eds), European Primary Teachers’ work and life under restructuring Professional experiences, knowledge and expertise in changing contexts. 2007; 102 – 42.
Damayanthi MKN, Samarasinghe GGDL., Bandara MAC., Hitihamu HMSJ., Perera S. Youth in development: Sri Lanka. Research Report No. 161, Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 2013.
Herrenkohl TI, Maguin E, Hill KG, Hawkins JD, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Developmental risk factors for youth violence. J Adolesc Heal. 2000;26(3):176–86.
Tolan PH, Guerra NG. What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An emperical review of the field Boulder, CO, University of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,; 1994. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.9426&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Assessed 28 Dec 2020.
Wijerathne M. Youth violence. Sunday Observer. 2018. http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2018/12/02/news-features/youth-violence. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Reason P, Bradbury H. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In: Reason P, Bradbury H, editors. Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
Baum FE. Power and glory: applying participatory action research in public health, Editorial. Gac Sanit. 2016;30(6):405–7).
Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854–7.
Fine M, Torre ME. Re-membering exclusions: Participatory action research in public institutions. Qual Res Psychol. 2004;1(1):15–37.
Langhout RD, Thomas E. Imagining participatory action research in collaboration with children: An introduction. Am J Community Psychol. 2010;46(1):60–6.
Checkoway B. What is youth participation? Child Youth Serv Rev. 2011;33(2):340–5.
Bingham A, Christie P. Youth action research in violence prevention: The youth survey project. Pract Anthropol. 2004;26(2):35–9.
Ozer EJ. Youth-led participatory action research: Overview and potential for enhancing adolescent development. Child Dev Perspect. 2017;11(3):173–7.
State Ministry of Skills Development Vocational Education, Research and Innovations. Department of Technical Education and Training, Skills Development & Vocational Education Sector. 2019. http://www.skillsmin.gov.lk/about-the-department-of-technical-education-and-training/. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
World Health Organization. Preventing youth violence: An overview of the evidence. 2015. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/181008. Assessed 15 Oct 2020.
Mercy JA, Butchart A, Rosenberg ML, Dahlberg L, Harvey A. Preventing violence in developing countries: a framework for action. International journal of injury control and safety promotion. 2008;15:197–208.
Olweus D. Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994;35(7):1171–90.
McCord J. Family as crucible for violence: Comment on Gorman-Smith et al. J Fam Psychol. 1996;10(2):147–52.
Ferguson CJ, San Miguel C, Hartley RD. A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: the influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. J Pediatr. 2009;155(6).
Osgood DW, Chambers JM. Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology. 2000;38(1):81–116.
Thornberry TP, Huizinga D, Loeber R. The prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from the programme of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. In: Howell JBCC, Krisberg B, Hawkins JD, Wilson JJ, editors. Sourcebook on serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/sourcebook-serious-violent-and-chronic-juvenile-offenders. Assessed 7 Mar 2021.
Ferguson CJ. Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in adolescents. J Youth Adolesc. 2011;40(4):377–91.
Hettige ST, Mayer M. Youth, Peace and Sustainable Development. Center for Poverty Analysis, Sri Lanka; 2004.
De Coster S, Heimer K, Wittrock SM. Neighborhood disadvantage, social capital, street context, and youth violence. Sociol Q. 2006;47(4):723–53.
Robertson J. Effective classroom control: Understand teacher-student relationships. 1989. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Effective-Classroom-Control-Understanding-Relationships/dp/0340648147. Assessed 2 Mar 2021.
Olweus D. Trpinčenje med učenci: kaj vemo in kaj lahko naredimo. Ljubljana. 1995. https://www.worldcat.org/title/trpincenje-med-ucenci-kaj-vemo-in-kaj-lahko-naredimo/oclc/442294330. Assessed 2 Mar 2021.
Netshitangani T. Causes of school-based violence in South African public schools: Application of normalisation theory to understand the phenomenon through educators’ perspectives. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014;5(20):1394–402.
Power T. Chapter 17: School Violence. In: Basic Education Rights Handbook – Education Rights in South Africa. 2018.
Ousey GC, Wilcox P. Subcultural values and violent delinquency: A multilevel analysis in middle schools. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2005;3(1):3–22.
Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC, Kulig TC, Cullen FT. Individual, institutional, and community sources of school violence: A meta-analysis. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 2020. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254633.pdf. Assessed 2 Mar 2021.
Wang K, Chen Y, Zhang J, Oudekerk BA. Indicators of school crime and safety: 2019. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 2020.
Hughes LA, Botchkovar EV, Antonaccio O, Timmer A. Schools, subcultural values, and the risk of youth violence: The influence of the code of the street among students in three U.S. Cities. J Youth Adolesc. 2021;51(2):244–60.
Felson RB, Liska AE, South SJ, McNulty TL. The subculture of violence and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Soc Forces.1994;73(1):155–73.
Bernburg JG, Thorlindsson T. Violent values, conduct norms, and youth aggression: A multilevel study in Iceland. Sociol Q. 2005;46(3):457–78.
University Grants Commission. Prevalence of ragging and sexual and gender based violence in Sri Lankan state universities. 2021. https://eugc.ac.lk/cgee/downloads/Prevalence of Ragging and Sexual & Gender Based Violence.pdf. Assessed 19 Mar 2022.
Hayes TC. Re-examining the subculture of violence in the South. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3158; 2006. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3158.
Wajahat A. Harassment due to ragging. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2014;113:129–33.
Gamage S. Psychological, sociological, and political dimensions of ragging in Sri Lankan universities. Soc Aff A J Soc Sci. 2017;1(7):13–21.
National Education Commission Sri Lanka. Socio political impact of student violence and indiscipline in universities and tertiary education institutes. 2008. http://nec.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Socio_Political_impact_on_the_students_and_staff.pdf. Assessed 16 Jun 2023.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

A qualitative exploration of the determinants of youth violence using participatory action research: a Sri Lankan study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Background of the study participants

I. Poor awareness

II. Inability to bear being defeated

III. Frequent victimization

IV. Unemployment

V. Psychological stress

VI. Use of substances of abuse

I. Poor parental affection, guidance, and parenting skills

II. Distorted family connections and family disruption

III. Pressure on education for children by parents

IV. Witnessing domestic violence as a child

V. Discrimination within the family

I. School dropout

II. Peer influences

III. Discrimination at school

IV. Competitive education system

I. Subculture

1. Perceptions favouring violence associated with the subculture

Perceived responsibility to continue the subculture:

Justification of the subculture and associated violence:

Normalization of the violence associated with the subculture:

2. Pressure to align with the subculture

3. Power

Seniority/respect:

Gender:

Geographic location:

4. Unity or ‘batch-fit’

5. Discouraging reporting of violence by the subculture

II. Diversity among students

I. Social discrimination, disadvantage, disparity, and inequity

II. Increase in the requirements and change in the goals of youth

1. Justification of violence

2. Glamorization of violence

3. Normalization of violence

IV. Gaps in law enforcement

V. Socio-political instabilities and the rise of inflation

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1