Impulsivity,attribution and prison bullying: Bully-category and perpetrator–victim mutuality

The current study explores bullying behaviours among adult male prisoners, examining its relationship with aggression attribution and impulsivity. Employed are two separate methods of analysis to determine how this may influence results. Participants were 102 prisoners. All completed a revised version of the Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist (DIPC-R), the Barratt Impulsivity Scale: Version II (BIS-12) and the Expressive Aggression Scale (EXPAGG). Analysis included categorical analysis with prisoners placed into one of four groups (pure bully, pure victim, bully/victim and not-involved), and factorial analysis where perpetration and victimisation were assessed as continuous variables and evidence of interactions explored. It was predicted that perpetration would be associated with higher instrumental attributions and higher impulsivity than non-perpetration. It was predicted that a factorial analysis would demonstrate no interactions between perpetration and victimisation across aggression variables, questioning the utility of a distinct ‘bully–victim’ group. Bullies were found to have higher instrumental attribution scores than non-bullies, with no differences for expressive attribution. Victims were more impulsive than non-victims with evidence that perpetration moderated this relationship. A categorical analysis demonstrated that bully/victims were more impulsive, at least in relation to pure bullies. Results suggested that it was the combined effect of indirect and direct aggression which promoted differences between victims and bullies in relation to attribution and impulsivity. Results are discussed with reference to previous research concerning prison bullying, with directions for future research focused on exploration of perpetrator–victim mutuality using a range of variables and distinct methods of analysis.     

They Persist: Parent and Youth Voice in the Age of Trump

In recent decades, parents and youth involved in the child welfare and foster care systems have created myriad ways to have their voices heard and their concerns appreciated, including through collective self‐advocacy efforts. New forms of individual and communal advocacy have emerged, including with supportive professionals, that acknowledge the centrality of parents and youth in every decision being made about their lives and about the systems that control their lives. Nevertheless, studies of youth and parent engagement identify the numerous individual and systemic barriers to meaningful participation and self‐advocacy efforts and the challenges to overcoming those barriers. This essay explores how empowered parents and youth can surmount those barriers with the assistance of their professional allies. Ultimately, this individual and communal engagement will strengthen a family‐oriented child welfare system and a more responsive government in these uncertain times.     

Women/Gender and Development: the Growing Gap Between Theory and Practice

Briefly reviewing the evolution of the field of women development, the author argues that the field has lost the dynamism characteristic of earlier periods of constructive tension between theory and practice that led to the adoption of the gender and development framework and the incorporation of issues of multiculturalism, human rights, and political participation into a field that had largely been defined in economic terms. Today, however, critical theory is caught in an “anti-neoliberal” position that is increasingly outdated and that has interpreted women’s work, individual agency, and the role of the state in ways that hinder rather than facilitate new thinking and better outcomes for women participants in WID/GAD projects and programs.     

Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations’ 2001 Millennium Development Goals and 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are of major importance for worldwide development. This article explores the construction of poverty and development within and across these documents, specifically focusing on the influence of dominant economic discourses – Keynesianism and neoliberalism – in the development paradigm. It assesses the failures of the Millennium Development Goals, as articulated by oppositional liberal feminists and World Social Forum critics, who embody competing values, representations and problem-solution frames that challenge and resist the dominant economic discourses. Finally, it evaluates responsiveness of the UN in the constitution of the Sustainable Development Goals.