Abstract: University violence in Niger
Fatchima Mayaki§
Abstract: This exploratory article on university violence in Niger is based on Epstein's theory of shared responsibility. The results are conclusive, showing that individuals are not only aware of what violence is, but also of the existence of shared responsibility. University violence is a convergence of factors that produces a convergence and interaction of responsibilities. Responsibility for violence in the university environment is attributed, in order, to the family, to politicians, to the school here, the university, and finally to society as a whole.
Keywords: university violence, shared responsibility, Epstein, Niger
Abstract: This exploratory article on academic violence in Niger builds on Epstein's shared responsibility theory. The results are conclusive and show that individuals know's what academic violence is, but also the exisence of shared responsibility. Academic violence is a convergence of factors that produces a convergence and interaction of responsibilities. The responsibility for violence in the university environment is attributed in order to the family, to the politicians, to the school here the University and finally to the society.
Keywords: Academic violence, shared responsability, Epstein, Niger
Introduction
In recent years, university violence has become a frequent occurrence on Niger's campuses. In addition to instruction, which is the university's primary mission, there is now a problem of education: respect between students and the other components of the university, respect between students themselves, respect for the infrastructure, etc. Violence is a translation of aggression, which is certainly a normal self-preservation behavior in human beings. Violence is a translation of aggression, which is certainly a normal form of self-preservation in human beings, but the process of socialization enables us to curb this aggression and direct it towards tasks of achievement or construction. When contained and domesticated, and turned towards sublimation, violence can be a driving force, helping the individual to build himself.
Violence can be individual or collective, directed at others or against oneself. It can take the most diverse and hidden forms, ranging from contempt and disregard to assault and even murder. It can also be verbal or psychological. According to Michaud, violence occurs when, in a situation of interaction, one or more actors act in a direct or indirect, massed or distributed way, harming one or more other actors, to varying degrees, either in their physical integrity, or in their moral integrity, or in their possessions, or in their symbolic and cultural participations. University violence takes many forms (physical, verbal, psychological, economic, etc.), as do its causes. It is through education that a child's personality develops a social appetite. However, in Niger today, families are increasingly abandoning their role as educators. This abandonment of educational duties can lead to a lack of reference points for students.
It is a well-known fact that the characteristics of a society influence the social behavior of the individuals who make it up. For many years now, however, Nigerian society has been facing a number of problems: food, security, political, environmental, economic, and so on. This has had an impact on social interactions. Uncertainty about employment and unemployment is also creating social unease, with the fear of what tomorrow will bring. As the days go by, a feeling of frustration grows and matures. All it takes is a catalyst of some kind to reactivate the natural aggression that lies dormant in everyone.
This fear of tomorrow is compounded by a university community in crisis: infrastructures and structures have not kept pace with the growth in student numbers over the last few decades. Overcrowding is rife. University facilities are limited, while the majority of students come from rural areas. New curricula bewilder students and teachers alike. In some cases, there is a lack of resources to implement reforms. Teachers are sometimes at a loss to understand what the university institution is asking of them. As for the students, they don't always have everything they need at their disposal. Apart from the much-publicized violence of student marches followed by vandalism and teachers' strikes, there are endemic forms of violence that are sometimes ignored by people outside the university. According to Olweus, violence at the University mainly concerns certain insidious forms of violence such as verbal exchanges, misconduct and repetitive relational difficulties, all of which combine to create unease and eventually lead to acts of violence. Not to mention that this form of violence is accompanied by real psychological suffering. So, this internal violence is the one we're interested in following several chance observations on campus.
In his Shared Influence model, Epstein states that violent behavior can be analyzed through a three-component model: the family, the community and the school environment, in this case the university. In this model, school violence is approached as a function of one of these contexts, or as a function of the interaction between two of them.
This model of shared responsibility will serve as an anchor for this exploratory study. However, it is important to point out that we will only be testing this shared responsibility. We are introducing another component to this model, namely politicians. Over the past twenty years or so, politicians have become involved in student affairs, financing activities and, above all, providing individual financial support. This proximity to political power transfers the national political climate to the campuses. Although this component belongs to the community, the community remains a diffuse and all-encompassing notion. In line with the model of Shared Responsibility, we argue that responsibility for the violence at the University of Niamey lies with the family, the university and the community, and with the interference of politicians in student life. We were keen to make another inference: the definition of violence depends on the body to which one belongs.
- Methodology
- Study variables
All study variables are binary
- Dependent variable
The question is whether or not the violence is due to a failure on the part of one of the following components
- Independent variables
We're talking about the family, the university, the community and politicians. In a word, do these factors predict violence or not?
- Participants
400 men and women were involved in the study, with equal proportions of students, teachers, administrative and technical staff, and participants from the general public. Participants' ages ranged from 19 to 65, with a mean of 39.82 and a standard deviation of 11.33. Apart from respecting the proportion of the different components of the study, the sample is appropriate.
- Tool
This questionnaire is based on variables from the Epstein model. Other questions have been added to the questionnaire. These include the definition of violence. The questionnaire also includes descriptive questions.
- Procedure
A poster is put up for students, inviting them to take part in research into the development of a non-violent policy at the University. The questionnaire is administered individually in an office used as an experimental cubicle. For the other components, the survey is carried out either at their place of work or at home, after making an appointment. Completion takes around twenty minutes at most. It is important to note that questionnaires were administered to certain individuals who did not speak French (gardeners, herdsmen, surface technicians in the case of the university). Despite this possible bias, we translated the questionnaire for them and transcribed their answers as we went along. In Niger, 70% of the population do not speak French. We felt it was important to have the opinion of this segment of the population. Eleven questionnaires were incomplete. Replacement questionnaires were administered. It should be noted that agreeing to respond does not entitle the respondent to any remuneration or benefit.
- Results: presentation and analysis
The data obtained from the questions are processed using SPSS 20.0 software. It is important to know how violence is defined by the various players involved, so the first result concerns the definition of violence in the university environment.
- Definitions of violence
When asked what definition they had of university violence, 66.8% (267 individuals) said it was a threat or aggression in a university environment. For 67 individuals or 16.7%, violence refers to an attack on physical and moral integrity. 36 individuals (≈ 9%) say that any bad behavior towards others is violence. 43 individuals (10.8%) think that university violence is any nuisance towards one of the university's components, while 24 individuals (6%) perceive university violence as violence between students and teachers. 6 individuals (1.5%) are classified as "other", as they refer to the cause rather than the definition. In fact, they claim that the violence is due to a lack of order in the restaurant.
The results show that individuals are well aware of what violence is, but apprehend it in different ways, probably based on personal experiences or character (or personality) traits pertaining to each individual. For example, for one person, shoving in the queue at the university canteen constitutes violence that deserves to be highlighted, because for this person, nothing beats order while waiting for one's food ration. For another, it's only when there's violence between students and teachers that he becomes aware of it. The following table gives us an overview of the definitions given to violence by the various participants.
Table 1: Definitions of violence
| What do you think university violence is? | Frequency | % |
| Threats or aggression in the university environment | 267 | 66.8 |
| Attacks on the physical and moral integrity of individuals | 67 | 16.7 |
| Bad behavior in general | 36 | 9 |
| Violence between students and teachers | 24 | 6 |
| Other | 6 | 1.5 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
L’idée d’une perception de la violence liée à l’appartenance à une composante nous a effleurée car nous savons que l’affiliation à un groupe crée une identité. C’est pourquoi nous avons effectué une Anova qui indique de manière globale que la différence de définition entre les différentes composantes du groupe enquêté est significative : F (3, 396) = 9,36 ; p < .0001. Mais cette différence devient relative quand on fait un test de comparaisons multiples. Ainsi par exemple, quand on compare la définition de la violence entre les Enseignants – chercheurs (EC) et le Personnel administratif et technique (PAT), aucune différence statistique significative n’est observée, idem entre les étudiants et la population ou entre les PAT et la population. Par contre, on observe une différence statistique entre la perception de la violence chez les EC et les étudiants ((I – J) = 1 ; p < .0001) ; entre les EC et la population ((I- J) = .780 ; p < .002) ; entre les PAT et les étudiants ((I –J) = .760 ; p < .003).
Table 2: Definition differences between components
| Dependent variable | (I) identity | (J) identity | M difference (I-J) | P |
| Defining university violence | EC | PAT | ,240 | 1 |
| EC | Students | 1,000 | ,000 | |
| EC | Population | ,780 | ,002 | |
| PAT | Students | ,760 | ,003 | |
| PAT | Population | ,540 | ,073 | |
| Students | Population | ,220 | 1 |
- Shared responsibility
This question is the primary aim of this work. In accordance with Epstein's model (op.cit.), the question is: who is responsible for violence in schools? According to this model, the three contexts of family, school and community can move closer together or further apart, depending on the forces exerted on each other, or on the practices specific to each context. In this sense, violence represents a system that interacts with the family and community contexts.
The answer to this question is crucial if we are to find lasting and appropriate solutions to university violence in Niger. In the questionnaire submitted, we asked: "In your opinion, violence in the university environment is a shared responsibility between the family, the university, society and politicians; please indicate who you think is most responsible".
The results, which confirm our hypothesis, show that responsibility for violence in the university environment lies with the family (62.5%), politicians (21.25%), the school (10%) and society (6.5%). The following table gives an overview of the results
Table 3: Shared responsibility
| Responsibility for violence | Frequency | % |
| The family | 250 | 62.5 |
| Politicians | 85 | 21,25 |
| The University | 40 | 10 |
| The company | 25 | 6.25 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
In order to better understand this attribution of responsibility to the various perpetrators, we asked respondents to explain the responsibility of the family, the community, politicians and the university. The following explanations emerged:
- Family responsibility
83.3% say the family has failed in its role of education, advice and awareness. ≈ 16.8% indicate that the family has lapses in its responsibilities. These results bear witness to the fact that there are failings in the education provided by families that lead to the expression of violence. As a result, families need to take responsibility for the actions of their children. Generally speaking, the family structure is criticized for abdicating its responsibility for the upbringing of children. These data are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 4: Family responsibility
| Family responsibility | Frequency | % |
| Weaknesses in education and awareness-raising | 333 | 83,3 |
| Failure to take responsibility | 67 | 16,8 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
- Corporate responsibility
Grievances against society are numerous. Indeed, 166 individuals (41.5%) believe that violence is due to society's abandonment of its role in raising awareness and moralizing behavior. 90 people (22.5%) say that violence is caused by society's failure to take action against violence. 65 individuals (16.3%) believe that violence stems from a lack of social adaptation structures, and 54 (13.5%) claim that society lacks the promotion of social cohesion. Only 6.3%, or 25 individuals, believe that violence arises because society fails to disseminate laws and regulations. These results are a welcome indication of individual expectations of society, and show that violence is the result of social breakdown. We believe that by abandoning its traditional "social" role, society creates a vacuum (conscious or unconscious) at the individual level. The void is stressful, and each individual will fill it in his or her own way - some with violence. A summary is given below.
Table 5: Company liability
| Company liability | Frequency | % |
| Abandonment of its public awareness role and moralization | 166 | 41.5 |
| Lack of mobilization against violence | 90 | 22.5 |
| Lack of adaptation/rehabilitation facilities | 65 | 16.3 |
| Lack of promotion of social cohesion | 54 | 13.5 |
| Lack of awareness of laws and regulations against violence | 25 | 6,3 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
- The University's responsibility
The University's responsibility stems from a lack of awareness of violence (48.5%), followed by a lack of regulations and enforcement (24.5%). 19% say that violence at the university stems from a lack of promotion of the norms of peace and living together, while 8% say that violence is due to a lack of specialists to combat it. We note a more formalized perception of the University's role, with regulations based on texts. This vision is logical. The proposals are presented in table 4 below.
Table 6: University responsibility
| Responsibility of the university | Frequency | % |
| Lack of student awareness | 194 | 48.5 |
| Lack of regulation and enforcement | 98 | 24.5 |
| Lack of promotion of peace and living together | 76 | 19 |
| Lack of specialists to combat violence | 32 | 8 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
- The responsibility of politicians
According to the information gathered, politicians are responsible for politicizing the university (38%), followed by allocating insufficient funding (31%). 109 individuals (27.3%) believe that politicians are responsible for the violence because they are not frank in their dialogue with academics. This irresponsibility creates frustrations that are externalized and materialize at the slightest contact between students. Only 3.8% of the sample said that politicians' responsibility had no impact. The respondents to this study are aware of the involvement of politicians in the climate prevailing at the University. Table 7 shows the various responses
Table 7: Responsibility of politicians
| Political responsibility | Frequency | % |
| Politicization of academia | 152 | 38 |
| Insufficient resources made available to the University | 124 | 31 |
| Lack of open dialogue with the University's components | 109 | 27.3 |
| No impact | 15 | 3.8 |
| Total | 400 | 100 |
On the question of the responsibility of politicians, it is interesting to note that 332 individuals, or 83% of the survey population, answered yes to the question of whether politicians generally interfere in student life.
- Discussion
From this study, it appears that individuals have a good knowledge of what violence in the university environment is. However, people's definitions of violence may differ from one individual to another, or from one group to another. We all perceive things differently depending on whether we are actors or observers, because we don't have the same information at our disposal. Attitude (and therefore evaluation) towards something is a function of one parameter (cognitive, conative or affective), or of two or all three put together. This is why, even if the idea of the use of force forms the framework of a definition, it is linked to something else. The definition given to violence is necessarily linked to a background, an experience, a personality.
Since the results obtained show a significant difference in the definition of violence between the various components, we think it would be wise to take this into account and plan targeted actions.
Our vision of shared responsibility makes it possible to avoid a fragmented vision that will skew any search for a solution. Bouchamma, Ilna and Moisset, in a study conducted in Haiti on violence in schools, came to conclusions similar to ours. According to these authors, participants attributed the causes of school violence more to factors external to the school (in order: family, society and students) than to factors internal to it. So it's worth noting the importance of an interactional synergy that makes it possible to rethink the contribution of the family first, then society and finally the university. These conclusions lead us to propose a return to the traditional Nigerian way of looking after the individual, which made a child not only the son of a family, but also that of a clan, of a society. The reappropriation of traditional Nigerien values will enable the construction or reconstruction of a personality in line with the group, through the various mechanisms of social influence. Dupâquier points to students' lack of moral sense, reference points, standards and values, while Lindstrom, Campart and Mancel all agree. While we have our reservations about moral sense, our results are in line with the lack of reference points, norms and values, because in a society in crisis, as we have emphasized, this is understandable. The responsibility of families, and of society as a whole, lies in their role as educators in the fullest sense of the word.
Coslin, Gasparini, Caouette, Kuntz, Demenet have linked violence in schools to the lack of training of certain players in the system, in this case, to the incapacity of teachers and their lack of performance in managing teaching. They concluded that the schools most affected by violence are those where students judge teachers most negatively. Roy and Bovin, quoted by Hébert, concluded that the behavior of certain teachers can sometimes be at the root of violent student behavior, such as a lack of justice and fairness towards students, and the abuse of disciplinary measures, while Charlot and Emin believe that the breakdown of teacher/student relations can explain violence. A study along these lines could prove useful in our context.
The participants in this study pointed to a shortcoming in family and societal education, which would be a source of violence among students. In our study, we stressed that Nigerian society in general is going through a crisis. Some authors, such as Gasparini, assert that violence in schools is part of the social crisis in general, and in families in particular. Mucchielli asserts that family poverty is an incubating factor for violence in schools, while parents' low cultural level is a source of violence among schoolchildren (Coslin). We were unable to test these variables, which could have enriched our work, even though we had to emphasize family conditions. These various studies, although conducted in school environments, cannot be directly transposed to the academic world. But they can serve as a springboard for reflection and the search for solutions.
Some authors put forward solutions that apply primarily or exclusively to one of the components we have considered. For example, preventive measures concerning the pupil (or student) revolve around promoting high values among young people (Kuntz), making moral education available to violent schoolchildren (Coslin; Fontaine and Jacques), making pupils aware of the consequences of violence (Doudin and Erohen-Marküs) and involving them in ways to combat violence (Simpson).
Family-related solutions focus on identifying and supporting problem families (Rainville) and raising awareness of the consequences of violence (Hébert). Coslin stresses that the primary responsibility for children's education lies with parents, despite the availability of training centers for students.
Leverett and Larry, for their part, advocate only school-based prevention measures, in particular the organization of extracurricular activities to involve pupils, while Lindstrom, Campart and Mancel speak of improving the school climate by involving teachers and school heads.
These studies, though enriching, remain partial in relation to our results. Indeed, shared responsibility presupposes that all players are involved in the care process, in proportion to their individual involvement. In the case of this study, we advocate a joint vision leading to joint action. Once the parties involved (students, teachers, PAT, society) have highlighted the shared influence, it is necessary to deal with the equation as a whole. This view is in line with that of Maati and Lakhdar regarding violence on Moroccan university campuses. These authors advocate, among other things, a common vision accepted by all parties within the framework of living together, a focus on practical aspects and the implementation of joint practical activities.
Conclusion
It should be remembered that the results obtained, in order, attribute responsibility for violence in the university environment to the family (62.5%), to politicians (21.25%), to the school here the University (10%) and finally to society (6.5%). It is important to note that 83.3% of those surveyed said that the family had failed to play its role in education, advice and awareness-raising, while 41.5% thought that violence was due to society's abandonment of its role in raising awareness and moralizing behavior. 83% of those surveyed said that politicians meddle in student life.
There are a number of limitations to this study, including the fact that the sample was not representative of the general population of Niger and/or of the universities, and the exploratory nature of the study, which means that there is a lack of available data that can be used as a basis for hindsight. We would like to emphasize a limitation that can also be a strength. The study was carried out at a time when violence had reached its peak. So it's a question of reaction on the spot, which gives us up-to-date, straightforward information, but on the other hand, emotions can play a disruptive role.
Further research based on these results could lead to concrete and appropriate solutions to manifestations of violence in the university environment, as well as to action studies.
Works quoted
Bouchamma, Yamina, Daniel Ilna and Jean-Joseph Moisset. Education et francophonie, 32. 1 (2004).
Caouette, Charles E. Si on parlait d'éducation, pour un nouveau projet de société. Montreal: VLB Éditeur, 1992.
Carra, Cécile and François Sicot. "Une autre perspective sur les violences scolaires: l'expérience de victimation". In B. Charlot et J.-C. Emin (dir.), Violences à l'école : état des savoirs. p. 61-81. Paris : Armand Colin, 1997.
Charlot, Bernard and Emin Jean-Claude. États des savoirs: Violence à l'école. Paris: Éditions Armand Colin, 2000.
Coslin, Pierre G. "Enseignants et élèves face à la violence scolaire". Bulletin de Psychologie, 52,5, n°443, (1999) : 523-530.
Demenet, P. (2001). La défaite des profs karatékas. http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_04/fr/education3.htm
Doudin, Pierre André and Miriam Erkohen-Marküs. Violences à l'école: Fatalité ou défi? Brussels: De Boeck, 2000.
Dupâquier, Jacques. La violence en milieu scolaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999.
Epstein, Joyce L. "School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children we share", Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (1995): 701-712.
Galand, Benoît. Nature et déterminants des phénomènes de violence en milieu scolaire. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2001.
Gasparini, Rachel. School orders and disorders. Discipline in elementary school. Paris: Grasset, 2000.
Kuntz, L. I. Zéro de conduite. 2000. http://pluto.unesco.org/courier/200001fr/apprend/txtl.htm
Lapointe, François. Violence à l'école primaire et mesures préventives. Master's thesis, unpublished. Laval University, Quebec City, 2002.
Lecacheur, Mireille. "La maitresse d'école maternelle à travers le jugement de ses élèves". Bulletin de Psychologie, 35 (1981): 221-227.
Lindstrom, Peter, Martina Campart and Catherine Mancel. "Brimades et violence dans les écoles suédoises: Une journal des recherches et des politiques de prévention; La violence à l'école: approches européennes." journal française de pédagogie, 123 (1998): 79-91.
Maati, Monjib and Lakhdar Ghettas. Contribution to the reduction of violence on university campuses in Morocco, Istanbul, March 18-19, 2017.
Michaud, Yves. Violence et politique. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.
Mucchielli, Laurent. " De la peur à l'analyse: l'école ne brûle pas." Le Monde diplomatique, 2002.
Olweus, Dan "Sweden", in Peter K Smith et al (eds.) The Nature of School Bullying: A Crossnational Perspective. London, Routledge (1999): 2-27.
Postic, Marcel. La relation éducative. Paris, PUF, 1979.
Rainville, Suzanne. L'abandon d'enfant. Dépister, accepter, accompagner. Montreal: Sciences de l'éducation et culture, 2001.
How to cite this article:
MLA: Mayaki, Fatchima. "Violence en milieu universitaire au Niger." Uirtus 1.1 (August 2021): 230-243.
§ Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey, [email protected]