Literature Review for the Intervention Proposal Social Psychology of Bullying

Introduction

Research on school bullying has developed chop-chop since the 1970s. Originating in social and psychological research in Kingdom of norway, Sweden, and Finland, this body of inquiry largely focusses on individualized personality traits of perpetrators and victims (Olweus, 1995). Global involvement in this miracle afterward spread and bullying research began in the U.k., Commonwealth of australia, and the United States (Griffin and Gross, 2004). Ordinarily quantitative in nature, many studies examine bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes (Patton et al., 2017). Whilst quantitative enquiry collates key demographic information to show variations in bullying behaviors and tendencies, this dominant bullying literature fails to explain why bullying happens. Nor does it try to empathise the wider social contexts in which bullying occurs. Qualitative inquiry on the other hand, in item participatory research, can aid shed light on these factors by highlighting the complexities of the contextual and relational aspects of bullying and the particular challenges associated with addressing it. Patton et al. (2017) in their systematic review of qualitative methods used in bullying research, found that the use of such methods can heighten academic and practitioner agreement of bullying.

In this paper, I draw on 4 bullying studies; one systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative research (O'Brien, 2009) and three empirical qualitative studies (O'Brien and Moules, 2010; O'Brien, 2016, 2017) (encounter Table i beneath). I hash out how participatory research methodologies, to varying degrees, were used to facilitate bullying cognition product amid teams of young people and adults. Young people in these presented studies were consequently involved in the research process along a continuum of interest (Bragg and Fielding, 2005). To the far left of the continuum, young people involved in research are referred to as "active respondents" and their data informs teacher practice. To the middle of the continuum sit "students equally co-researchers" who work with teachers to explore an issue which has been identified by that teacher. Finally to the correct, sit down "students as researchers" who conduct their own enquiry with support from teachers. Moving from left to right of the continuum shows a shift in power dynamics between immature people and adults where a partnership develops. Young people are therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the projection from their own unique perspective, that of being a young person at present.

Tabular array i. The studies.

In this paper, I abet for the agile involvement of young people in the research process in order to heighten bullying knowledge. Traditional quantitative studies have a tendency to homogenize young people by suggesting similarity in thinking about what constitutes bullying. Yet, qualitative studies take demonstrated that regardless of variables, young people understand bullying in different ways so there is a demand for farther research that starts from these perspectives and focusses on issues that young people deem of import. Consequently, participatory research allows for the stories of the collective to emerge without losing the stories of the private, a chore not enabled through quantitative approaches.

What Is Bullying?

Researching school bullying has been problematic and is partly related to the difficulty in defining it (Espelage, 2018). Broadly speaking, bullying is recognized as aggressive, repeated, intentional behavior involving an imbalance of ability aimed toward an individual or grouping of individuals who cannot easily defend themselves (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). In more recent times, "traditional" bullying behaviors accept been extended to include cyber-bullying, involving the utilize of the net and mobile-phones (Espelage, 2018). Disagreements take been noted in the literature about how bullying is defined past researchers linked to subject field of study and civilization. Some researchers for example, disagree most the inclusion or not of repetition in definitions (Griffin and Gross, 2004) and these disagreements accept had an bear on on interpreting findings and prevalence rates. However, testify further suggests that young people as well view bullying in different ways (Guerin and Hennessy, 2002; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012; Eriksen, 2018). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) explored differences betwixt researchers and young people's definitions of bullying, and found that children'due south definitions were unremarkably spontaneous, and did not always cover the elements of repetition, power imbalance and intent. They ended, that children demand to be provided with a bullying definition so similarities and comparisons tin exist fatigued. In contrast, Huang and Cornell (2015) plant no bear witness that the inclusion of a definition effected prevalence rates. Their findings, they suggest, indicate that young people use their own perceptions of bullying when answering self-report questionnaires and they are not influenced past an imposed definition.

Withal, differences in children and young people'south bullying definitions are evident in the research literature and have been explained past recourse to age and stage of development (Smith et al., 2002) and their assumed lack of understanding about what constitutes bullying (Boulton and Flemington, 1996). Naylor et al. (2001) for case, found that younger children call up similarly in their definitions of bullying, while Smith et al. (2002) plant that 8 yr olds did not distinguish equally conspicuously between different forms of behavioral aggression as xiv year olds. Methodological limitations associated with understanding bullying have been identified by Forsberg et al. (2018) and Maunder and Crafter (2018). These authors postulate that quantitative approaches, although providing crucial insights in understanding bullying, are reliant on pre-defined variables, which can shield some of the complexities that qualitative designs can unravel, as individual experiences of bullying are brought to the fore. Indeed, La Fontaine (1991) suggests that unlike standard self-study questionnaires and other quantitative methods used to collect bullying information, analyzing qualitative information such equally those collected from a helpline, enables the vocalisation of young people to be heard and consequently empowers adults to sympathize bullying on their terms rather than relying solely on interpretations and perceptions of adults. Moore and Maclean (2012) collected survey, also as interview and focus grouping data, on victimization occurring on the journey to and from school. They found that what young people determined as victimization varied and was influenced past a multifaceted array of circumstances, some of which adults were unaware of. Context for instance, played an of import role where certain behaviors in one situation could be regarded as victimization while in some other they were not. Specific behaviors including ignoring an private was particularly hurtful and supporting a friend who was the subject of victimization could pb to their own victimization.

Lee (2006) suggests that some bullying enquiry does not reflect private experiences, and are thus difficult for participants to chronicle to. Canty et al. (2016) reiterates this and suggests that when researchers provide young people with bullying definitions in which to position their own experiences, this can mask some of the complexities that the research intends to uncover. Such approaches event in an oversight into the socially constructed and individual experiences of bullying (Eriksen, 2018). Griffin and Gross (2004) farther argue that when researchers use vague or ambiguous definitions an "overclassification of children as bullies or victims" (p. 381) ensues. Consequently, quantitative research does not consider children as reliable in interpreting their own lived experiences and therefore some of the interactions they consider as bullying, that practise not fit within the conventional definitions, are concealed. This approach favors the adult definition of bullying regarding it as "more than reliable" than the definitions of children and young people Canty et al. (2016). The perceived "seriousness" of bullying has also been explored. Overall, young people and adults are more probable to consider straight bullying (contiguous actions including hit, threatening and calling names) as "more serious" than indirect bullying (rumor spreading, social exclusion, forcing others to do something they do non want to practice) (Maunder et al., 2010; Skrzypiec et al., 2011). This perception of "seriousness," alongside cryptic definitions of bullying, has further implications for reporting it. Despite the advice given to young people to report incidents of schoolhouse bullying (Moore and Maclean, 2012), the literature suggests that many are reluctant to exercise so (deLara, 2012; Moore and Maclean, 2012).

Several factors have been highlighted as to why young people are reluctant to written report bullying (Blackness et al., 2010). deLara (2012), found apprehension in reporting bullying to teachers due to the fear that they will either not do enough or too much and inadvertently brand the state of affairs worse, or fear that teachers volition not believe young people. Inquiry as well shows that immature people are reluctant to tell their parents well-nigh bullying due to perceived over-reaction and fear that the bullying will be reported to their schoolhouse (deLara, 2012; Moore and Maclean, 2012). Oliver and Candappa (2007) propose that young people are more likely to confide in their friends than adults (come across also Moore and Maclean, 2012; Allen, 2014). However, if young people believe they are beingness bullied, but are unable to recognize their experiences within a predefined definition of bullying, this is likely to impact on their ability to report it.

Research from psychology, sociology, didactics and other disciplines, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, have enabled the generation of bullying knowledge to date. However, in order to understand why bullying happens and how it is influenced past wider social constructs there is a need for further qualitative studies, which hear direct from children and immature people themselves. The next department of this paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, which recognizes that young people are active agents in generating new bullying knowledge alongside adults.

Theoretical Underpinnings – Hearing From Children and Young People

The sociology of childhood (James, 2007; Tisdall and Punch, 2012) and children'due south rights agenda more broadly (Un Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989) have offered new understandings and methods for research which recognize children and young people as active agents and experts on their ain lives. From this perspective, research is conducted with rather than on children and young people (Kellett, 2010).

Participatory methodologies have proven especially useful for involving young people in research as co-researchers (come across for case O'Brien and Moules, 2007; Stoudt, 2009; Kellett, 2010; Spears et al., 2016). This process of enquiry actively involves those normally being studied in research activities. Previously, "traditional" researchers devalued the experiences of inquiry participants arguing that due to their distance from them, they themselves are improve equipped to interpret these experiences (Beresford, 2006). Still, Beresford (2006) suggests that the shorter the distance between direct feel and interpretation, the less distorted and inaccurate the resulting knowledge is probable to be. Jones (2004) farther advocates that when young people's voices are absent-minded from research about them the research is incomplete. Certainly Spears et al. (2016), adopted this approach in their report with the Immature and Well Cooperative Research Middle (CRC) in Australia. Young people played an agile role within a multidisciplinary team aslope researchers, practitioners and policymakers to co-create and co-evaluate the learning from four marketing campaigns for youth wellbeing through participatory research. Through this methodological approach, findings show that young people were able to reconceptualize mental health and wellbeing from their ain perspectives as well every bit share their lived experiences with others (Spears et al., 2016). Bland and Atweh (2007), Ozer and Wright (2012), highlight the benefits afforded to immature people through this procedure, including participating in dialog with determination-makers and bringing aspects of pedagogy and learning to their attention.

Against this background, data presented for this paper represents findings from four studies underpinned by the ethos that bullying is socially synthetic and is best understood by exploring the context to which information technology occurs (Schott and Sondergaard, 2014; Eriksen, 2018). This socially synthetic view focusses on the evolving positions inside young people'due south groups, and argues that within a bullying situation sometimes a young person is the bully, sometimes the victim and sometimes the bystander/witness, which contrasts the traditional view of bullying (Schott and Sondergaard, 2014). The focus therefore is on group relationships and dynamics. For that reason, Horton (2011) proposes that if bullying is an extensive problem including many immature people, then focusing entirely on personality traits will non generate new bullying knowledge and will be problematic in terms of interventions. It is important to acknowledge that this modify in focus and view of bullying and how it is manifested in groups, does non negate the individual experiences of bullying rather the focus shifts to the process of being accepted, or non, by the group (Schott and Sondergaard, 2014).

The Studies

This section provides a broad overview of the four included studies underpinned past participatory methodologies. Table i presents the details of each study. Young people were involved in the inquiry process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research, forth a continuum as identified by Bragg and Fielding (2005). This ranged from "agile respondents" to the left of the continuum, "students as co-researchers" in the middle and "students as researchers" to the right of the continuum. Young people were therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspectives (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018).

A key finding from study one (O'Brien, 2009) was the lack of voice afforded to young people through the research process and can be seen to reflect the far left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum, as young people were non direct involved equally "active respondents" simply their views were included in secondary information analysis and informed the studies that followed. For example, the quantitative studies used an agreed academic definition of bullying which may or may non have influenced how young participants defined bullying within the studies. On the other hand, the qualitative study involved a group of students in deciding which questions to ask of the research participants and in interpreting the findings.

In contrast, study 2 (O'Brien and Moules, 2010) was commissioned and led by a group of young people chosen PEAR (Public health, Pedagogy, Awareness, Researchers), who were established to advise on public health inquiry in England. PEAR members were based in two large English language cities and comprised 20 young people aged between 13 and 20 years. The premise of the study was that PEAR members wanted to commission research into cyber bullying and the effects this has on mental health from the perspectives of young people rather than adult perspectives. This project was innovative as young people commissioned the enquiry and participated equally researchers (Davey, 2011) and can be seen to reflect the middle "students every bit co-researchers" likewise equally moving toward to correct "students as researchers" of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum. Although the young people did not carry out the day-to-24-hour interval work on the project, they were responsible for leading and shaping it. More chiefly, the research topic and focus were decided with young people and adults together.

Study three (O'Brien, 2016) involved five self-selecting students from an independent 24-hour interval and boarding school who worked with me to answer this question: What do young people in this independent day and boarding school view equally the core result of bullying in the schoolhouse and how practise they desire to address this? These students chosen themselves R4U (Research for You) with the slogan researching for life without fear. Three cycles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) ensued, where decision making about direction of the enquiry, including methods, analysis and dissemination of findings were made by the research squad. As current students of the school, R4U had a unique "insider knowledge" that complemented my position every bit the "academic researcher." By working together to generate agreement about bullying at the schoolhouse, the findings thus reflected this variety in knowledge. As the project evolved so too did the involvement of the young researchers and my noesis as the "outsider" (see O'Brien et al., 2018a for further details). Similar to study two, this project is situated between the heart: "students as co-researchers" and the right: "students as researchers" of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum.

Study iv (O'Brien, 2017) was small-scale-scale and involved interviewing four young people who were receiving support from a charity providing therapeutic and educational support to young people who self-exclude from schoolhouse due to feet, as a result of bullying. Self-exclusion, for the purposes of this report, ways that a young person has made a conclusion not to go to schoolhouse. It is unlike from "existence excluded" or "truanting" because these young people do not feel safe at school and are therefore too anxious to attend. Little is known nigh the experiences of young people who self-exclude due to bullying and this report helped to unravel some of these issues. This report reflects the left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum where the immature people were involved equally "active respondents" in informing adult agreement of the issue.

A diversity of research methods were used across the iv studies including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups (see Table 1 for more than details). In studies two and three, young researchers were central in deciding the types of questions to be asked, where they were asked and who we asked. In written report three the young researchers conducted their own peer-led interviews. The variety of methods used beyond the studies are a strength for this paper. An over-reliance on i method is not portrayed and the methods used reflected the requirements of the individual studies.

Informed Consent

Voluntary positive agreement to participate in enquiry is referred to as "consent" while "assent," refers to a person'southward compliance to participate (Coyne, 2010). The divergence in these terms are normally used to distinguish the "legal competency of children over and under 16 years in relation to enquiry." (Coyne, 2010, 228). In England, children have a legal right to consent and then therefore assent is non-applicable (Coyne, 2010). However, in that location are still tensions surrounding the ability of children and young people under the historic period of 18 years to consent in research which are related to their vulnerability, age and stage of evolution (Lambert and Glacken, 2011). The research in the three empirical studies (two, iii and four) started from the premise that all young participants were competent to consent to participate and took the approach of Coyne (2010) who argues that parental/carer consent is not always necessary in social research. Academy Inquiry Ethics Committees (RECs) are however ordinarily unfamiliar with the theoretical underpinnings that children are viewed equally social actors and generally able to consent for themselves (Lambert and Glacken, 2011; Play tricks, 2013; Parsons et al., 2015).

In club to ensure the young people in these reported studies were fully informed of the intentions of each projection and to attach to upstanding principles, age advisable participant data sheets were provided to all participants detailing each study'due south requirements. Immature people were and so asked to provide their own consent by signing a consent form, whatever questions they had virtually the studies were discussed. Information sheets were made available to parents in studies three and four. In written report two, the parents of young people participating in the focus groups were informed of the study through the organizations used to recruit the immature people. My full contact details were provided on these sheets so parents/carers could address any queries they had about the projection if they wished. When young people participated in the online questionnaire (study two) we did not know who they were then could not provide separate data to parents. Consequently, all participants were given the opportunity to participate in the enquiry without the consent of their parents/carers unless they were deemed incompetent to consent. In this instance the onus was on the developed (parent or carer for example) to evidence incompetency (Alderson, 2007). Favorable ethical approval, including approval for the above consent procedures, was granted past the Faculty Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University.

In the next department I provide a synthesis of the findings across the four studies earlier discussing how participatory research with young people can offer new understandings of bullying and its impacts on young people.

Findings

Although each study was designed to respond specific bullying research questions, the following primal themes cutting across all iv studies¹ :

• Bullying definitions

◦ Behaviors

• Impact of bullying on victim

• Reporting bullying

Bullying Definitions

Behaviors

Immature people had various understandings about what they considered bullying to be. Overall, participants agreed that ambitious direct behaviors, mainly focusing on physical aggression, constituted bullying:

"…if someone is physically hurt then that is bullying directly away." (Female, written report 3).

"I think [cyber-bullying is] non as bad because with verbal or physical, you are more than likely to come up in contact with your assailant regularly, and that tin can be disturbing. All the same, with cyber-bullying it is virtual so you tin can detect ways to avoid the person." (Female, report 2).

Proper name-calling was an cryptic concept, young people generally believed that in isolation proper name-calling might not be bullying behavior or it could be interpreted as "joking" or "banter":

"I never really see any, a bit of name calling and taking the mick merely cypher ever serious." (Male, study iii).

The concept of "banter" or "joking" was explored in study three as a result of the participatory design. Young people suggested "banter" involves:

"…a personal joke or group banter has no intention to harm another, information technology is merely playful jokes." (Female, study 3).

However, underpinning this agreement of "banter" was the importance of intentionality:

"Barrack maxim things bad as a joke and everyone knows it is a joke." (Male, study 3).

"Barrack" was thus contentious when perception and reception were ambiguous. In some cases, "barrack" was considered "normal behavior":

"…we've just been joking about, just it'southward never been anything harsh it'due south just been like having a joke…" (Male, study iii).

The same view was evident in relation to cyber-bullying. Some participants were rather dismissive of this approach suggesting that it did not be:

"I don't really call back it exists. If y'all're existence cyber-"bullied" so at that place is something incorrect with you- information technology is insanely piece of cake to avoid, by blocking people and so on. Perhaps information technology consists of people insulting you online?" (Male, written report 2).

When young people considered additional factors added to proper noun calling such as the type of name-calling, or aspects of repetition or intention, then a different view was credible.

"…but it has to exist constant it can't be a single time because that always happens." (Male, study 3).

Besides with words used on social media, young people considered intentionality in their consideration of whether particular behaviors were bullying, highlighting of import nuances in how bullying is conceptualized:

"Some people they don't desire to sound fell just because maybe if yous don't put a smiley face on it, information technology might seem fell when sometimes you don't mean it." (Female, study two).

Study 1 also institute that immature people were more likely to discuss sexist or racist bullying in interviews or focus groups but this information was scarce in the questionnaire data. This is mayhap as a upshot of how the questions were framed and the researchers' perspectives informing the questions.

Evident across the four studies was the understanding young people had about the effects of continuous name-calling on victims:

"…you can take 1 comment, y'all can only like almost brush it off, but if yous keep on beingness bullied and bullied and bullied then you might kind of think, hang on a infinitesimal, they've taken it a pace too far, like it's actually become more personal, whereas just similar a cheeky annotate between friends it's become something that'south more serious and more personal and more than annoying or hurtful to someone." (Female, study iii).

"Cyber-bullying is basically still exact bullying and is definitely psychological bullying. Any bullying is psychological though, really. And any bullying is going to be harmful." (Female, study 2).

Aspects of indirect bullying (social exclusion) were features of studies one and three. For the virtually part, the research reviewed in study 1 establish that every bit young people got older they were less likely to consider characteristics of social exclusion in their definitions of bullying. In study 3, when discussing the school's anti-bullying policy, study participants raised questions about "isolating a pupil from a friendship grouping." Some contested this argument as a form of bullying:

"…. at that place is avoiding, as in, not actively playing a office in trying to exist friends which I don't really see equally bullying I run into this equally just not getting someone to join your friendship group. Whereas if you were actually leaving him out and rejecting him if he tries to be friends then I remember I would see that as malicious and bullying." (Male, study iii).

"Isolating a student from a friendship group – I believe there are various reasons for which a educatee can be isolated from a grouping – including by choice." (Female, study 3).

Cyber-bullying was explored in particular in study 2 but less so in the other three studies. Most study two participants considered that cyber-bullying was only as harmful, or in some cases worse than, 'traditional' bullying due to the use of similar forms of "harassment," "antagonizing," "tormenting," and 'threatening' through online platforms. Some young people believed that the concrete altitude betwixt the victim and the keen is an important aspect of cyber-bullying:

"I think it's worse because people observe it easier to abuse someone when not face to face." (Male, study 2).

"I call up information technology could be worse, because lots of other people can become involved, whereas when it'south physical bullying it'southward normally but betwixt i or ii or a smaller grouping, things could escalate too because especially Facebook, they've got potential to escalate." (Female, study 2).

Other participants in report two spoke nigh bullying at school which transfers to an online platform highlighting no "escape" for some. In addition, it was made clearer that some immature people considered distancing in relation to bullying and how this influences perceptions of severity:

"…when there'due south an argument it tin continue when you're not at school or whatever and they can continue it over Facebook and everyone can run into it then other people get involved." (Female, study 2).

"I was cyber-bullied on Facebook, because someone put several hurtful comments in response to my status updates and profile pictures. This actually was extended into school by the bully…" (Male, study two).

Impact of Bullying on Victim

Although bullying behaviors were a primary consideration of immature people's understanding of bullying, many considered the consequences associated with bullying and in detail, the bear upon on mental wellness. In these examples, the specifics of the bullying event were irrelevant to immature people and the focus was on how the behavior was received by the recipient.

In study 2, young people divulged how cyber-bullying had adversely affected their power to become to school and to socialize outside school. Indeed some young people reported the affects it had on their confidence and self-esteem:

"I developed anorexia nervosa. Although non the single cause of my illness, bullying greatly contributed to my depression self-esteem which led to condign sick." (Female, study 2).

"It hurts people's feelings and can even lead to committing suicide…." (Female, study ii).

Across the studies, young people who had been bullied themselves shared their individual experiences:

"….you feel insecure and it just builds up and builds up and then in the end you take no self-confidence." (Female, study 2).

"…it was an everyday thing I just couldn't take it and it was causing me a lot of anxiety." (Male person, written report four).

"I am different to anybody in my class …. I couldn't take it no more I was upset all the fourth dimension and information technology made me feel broken-hearted and I wasn't sleeping but spent all my time in bed beingness sad and unhappy." (Male, study 4).

Young people who had not experienced bullying themselves agreed that the impact it had on a person was a big determiner of whether bullying had happened:

"When your self-confidence is severely afflicted and you go shy. Also when y'all start believing what the bullies are saying most you and beginning to doubt yourself." (Female, written report 3).

"…information technology makes the victim feel bad about themselves which more often than not leads to low and sadness." (Male, study 2).

Further evidence around the bear upon of bullying was credible in the data in terms of how relational aspects can affect perceived severity. In the case of cyber-bullying, young people suggested a sense of detachment because the bullying takes place online. Consequently, as the relational chemical element is removed bullying becomes easier to execute:

"…considering people don't have to face them over a calculator so it'south and so much easier. It's so much quicker likewise cos on something like Facebook it's not just y'all, you can go everyone on Facebook to aid you slap-up that person." (Female, study 2).

"Due to technology beingness cheaper, information technology is easier for immature people to nifty people in this way because they don't believe they can be tracked." (Male, study 2).

"The effects are the same and often the bullying can be worse as the perpetrator is unknown or can disguise their identity. Away from the eyes of teachers etc., more tin be washed without anyone knowing." (Female, study 2).

Relational aspects of bullying were further highlighted with regards to how "banter" was understood, particularly with in-group bullying and how the same case can either be seen as "barrack" or bullying depending on the nature of the relationship:

"…we've just been joking about, but it's never been annihilation harsh information technology's just been like having a joke. well, I oasis't washed information technology but I've been in a oversupply where people do it, so I don't want to get involved but in case information technology started an statement." (Female, study iii).

"But it likewise depends…who your groups with, for example, if I spoke to my friends from [Schoolhouse]… I wouldn't similar use taboo language with them because to them information technology may seem inappropriate and probably a flake shocked, just if I was with my friends exterior of school we use taboo linguistic communication, we'll be ourselves and nosotros'll exist comfortable with it, and if a stranger walked past and heard us obviously they'd be thinking that nosotros're being bullied ourselves." (Female, study 3).

Furthermore, how individuals are perceived by others tended to influence whether they were believed or non. In study four for instance, participants suggested that who the bullies were within the school might have impacted how complaints were acted upon by school officials:

"When I went to the school nigh information technology, the students said I had attacked them – all eight of them! I just realized that no one believes me…." (Female, report iv).

While in study iii, a characteristic of bullying was the influence the assaulter has over the victim:

"When the victim starts to feel in danger or offset to fear the other person. Consequently he or she tries to avoid the bad guy (or girl!)" (Male, report 3).

These relational and contextual issues besides influenced a young person'south ability to written report bullying.

Reporting Bullying

Immature people were more likely to report bullying when they considered information technology was 'serious' enough. But under one-half of participants in study ii sought emotional/practical support if they worried about, or were afflicted by cyber-bullying, with almost talking to their parents. In study three, immature people were less likely to seek support but when they did, nigh went to their teachers. In study iv, all participants reported bullying in school where they did not feel supported.

Fear of making the bullying worse was captured across the studies as a reason for not reporting it:

"I'm scared that if I tell and then the bullying will even so go on and they volition do more." (Female, study 3).

"The great might dandy you if he finds out." (Male, study 3).

Beingness able to deal with the incident themselves was also a reason for not-reporting:

"…information technology'due south embarrassing and not necessary, my friends assistance me through it, adults never seem to understand." (Female, study 2).

"I don't tend to talk to anyone almost it, I just keep it to myself and obviously that's the worst thing you should always practice, y'all should never keep it to yourself, considering I regret keeping it to myself to exist honest…." (Female, study 3).

"…only I think I'd deal with information technology myself 'cos. I was quite insecure simply at present I'm quite secure with myself, so I'll sort it out myself. I recall it'south just over time I've just sort of hardened to it." (Male, study 3).

Virtually immature people seeking support for bullying said they spoke to an adult only the helpfulness of this support varied. This finding is of import for agreement relationships between young people and adults. Those who felt supported by their teachers for example, suggested that they took the time to heed and understood what they were telling them. They also reassured young people who in plough believed that the adult they confided in would know what to do:

"So I retrieve the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she's a good listener and she can sense when you lot don't want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers strength information technology out of you." (Female, study iii).

"My school has had assemblies near cyber-bullying and ways you tin can stop information technology or you can report it anonymously…. you tin write your name or y'all can't, it's all up to Yous." (Male, written report 2).

Others however had a negative feel of reporting bullying and a number of reasons were provided equally to why. Firstly, young people stated that adults did not believe them which made the bullying worse on some level:

"I went to the teachers a couple of times but, no, I don't think they could do anything. I did sort of go three times and information technology still kept on going, and then I merely had to sort of deal with it and I sort of took information technology on the cheek…." (Male, study iii).

Secondly, young people suggested that adults did non always listen to their concerns, or in some cases did non have their concerns seriously plenty:

"…I had had a actually bad mean solar day with the girls then I came out and I explained all this to my head of year and how it was affecting me but instead of supporting me he put me directly into isolation." (Male, study iv).

"I could empathize them thinking I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with one incident but this was xviii months of me constantly reporting different incidents." (Female, study 4).

"If cyber-bullying is brought to our schoolhouse's attending, usually, they expect printed proof of the situation and will take it into their ain hand depending on its seriousness. However this is ordinarily a couple of detentions. And it'southward merely not enough." (Female person, study 2).

Finally, some young people suggested that teachers did not always know what to do when bullying concerns were raised and consequently punished those making the complaint:

"I think I would have offered support instead of punishment to someone who was suffering with feet. I wouldn't take seen anxiety as bad beliefs I call up that'south quite ignorant but they saw it every bit bad behavior." (Male, study four).

It is worth reiterating, that the majority of immature people beyond the studies did non report bullying to anybody, which farther underscores the contextual issues underpinning bullying and its role in enabling or disabling bullying behaviors. Some considered it was "pointless" reporting the bullying and others feared the situation would be fabricated worse if they did:

"My school hide and say that bullying doesn't get on cos they don't wanna expect bad for Ofsted." (Male, study 2).

"My school is oblivious to annihilation that happens, many things against school rules happen below their eyes but they either refuse to acknowledge it or are but not paying attention then nosotros must endure." (Female person, study 2).

"That's why I find that when y'all get bullied you're scared of telling considering either, in most cases the instructor will – oh yeah, yeah, don't worry, nosotros'll sort information technology out and then they don't tend to, and then they get bullied more than for it." (Female, study 3).

Immature people were concerned that reporting bullying would have a negative impact on their friendship groups. Some were broken-hearted about disrupting the status quo inside:

"I think everyone would talk almost me behind my back and say I was mean and anybody would hate me." (Female, study 3).

Others expressed business about the potential vulnerability they were likely to experience if they raised concerns of bullying:

"I was worried information technology might touch my other friendships."(Boy, written report 2).

"I'm scared that if I tell, then the bullying will still go on and they will do more than." (Female, study three).

"….because they might tell off the bullies and so the bullies volition like go back at yous." (Female, written report 3).

These findings underscore the importance of contextual and relational factors in understanding bullying from the perspectives of immature people and how these factors influence a young person's ability or willingness to written report bullying.

Finally 1 young person who had self-excluded from school due to severe bullying suggested that schools:

"…demand to be looking out for their students' mental wellbeing – not but be there to teach them but to back up and mentor them. Proceed them safe actually… I missed out on well-nigh three years of socializing outside of schoolhouse because I just couldn't do it. I call up it'due south important that students are encouraged to stand up up for each other." (Female, study 4).

Discussion

The studies presented in this paper illustrate the multitude of perceptions underpinning immature people's understandings of what constitutes bullying, both in terms of the behavior and likewise the impact that this behavior has on an individual. In turn, the ambiguity of what constitutes bullying had an impact on a young person'due south ability to seek support. Discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people'southward groups are shown, highlighting the fluid and changing roles that occur within a bullying situation. Findings from quantitative studies have demonstrated the differing perceptions of bullying by adults and young people (see for case Smith et al., 2002; Vaillancourt et al., 2008; Maunder et al., 2010; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012). However, by combining findings from participatory research, new understandings of the relational and contextual factors important to young people come to the fore.

Young people participating in these 4 studies had unique cognition and experiences of bullying and the social interactions of other immature people in their schools and wider friendship groups. The underpinning participatory blueprint enabled me to work aslope young people to clarify and sympathize their unique perspectives of bullying in more detail. The research teams were therefore able to construct meaning together, based not entirely on our own assumptions and ideologies, but including the viewpoint of the wider inquiry participant group (Thomson and Gunter, 2008). Together, through the procedure of co-constructing bullying cognition, we were able to build on what is already known in this field and contribute to the view that bullying is socially constructed through the experiences of young people and the groups they occupy (Schott and Sondergaard, 2014).

With regards to understanding what bullying is, the findings from these studies corroborate those of the wider literature from both paradigms of enquiry (for example Naylor et al., 2001; Canty et al., 2016); that being the discrepancies in definitions between adults and young people and also between young people themselves. Yet, findings here advise that young people's bullying definitions are contextually and relationally contingent. With the exception of physical bullying, immature people did not differentiate between direct or indirect behaviors, instead they tended to hold that other contextual and relational factors played a role in deciding if particular behaviors were bullying (or not). The participatory inquiry design enabled reflection and further investigation of the ideas that were particularly important to young people such as repetition and intentionality. Repetition was generally seen as being indicative of bullying beingness "serious," and therefore more likely to be reported, and without repetition, a level of normality was perceived. This finding contradicts some work on bullying definitions, Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) for example institute that regardless of the part played by young people in a bullying episode (victim, aggressor or witness), the criteria of 'repetition' was not important in how they defined bullying.

Relational factors underpinning young people's perception of bullying and indeed it's "seriousness" were farther reflected in their willingness or otherwise to report it. Fear of disrupting the status quo of the wider friendship grouping, potentially leading to their own exclusion from the group, was raised equally a business organisation by young people. Some were concerned their friends would non support them if they reported bullying, while others feared farther retaliation as a result. Friendship groups have been identified as a source of back up for those who have experienced bullying and as a protective factor against further bullying (Allen, 2014). Although participants did not suggest their friendship groups are unsupportive information technology is possible that group dynamics underscore seeking (or not) support for bullying. Other literature has described such practices as show of a ability imbalance (Olweus, 1995; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012) merely young people in these studies did not depict these unequal relationships in this way and instead focused on the outcomes and impacts of bullying. Indeed Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) as well found that young people in their quantitative study did not consider "power imbalance" in their understanding of bullying and were more probable to consider intention. This paper, however, underscores the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people's friendships can shift what is understood equally bullying or non. Without such nuances, some behaviors may be overlooked as bullying, whereas other more than obvious behaviors draw further attention. This paper also shows that contextual issues such as support structures can shift how young people see bullying. Contextual factors were evident beyond the 4 studies through the recognition of bullying being enabled or disabled by institutional factors, including a school'south ability to answer appropriately to bullying concerns. Young people suggested that schools could be influenced by bullies, perceiving them as non-threatening and consequently not dealing accordingly with the situation. Indeed some immature people reported that their schools placed the onus on them as victims to modify, consequently placing the "blame" on victims instead. These findings enhance questions nearly who immature people experience able to confide in almost bullying likewise equally problems effectually training and teacher preparedness to deal with bullying in schools. Evidenced in these four studies, is that immature people experience somewhat asunder from adults when they take bullying concerns. Those who did study bullying, identified particular individuals they trusted and knew would support them. Novick and Isaacs (2010) identified teachers who immature people felt comfy in budgeted to report bullying and described them every bit "virtually agile, engaged and responsive." (p. 291). The bullying literature suggests that as young people become older they are more likely to confide in friends than adults (Moore and Maclean, 2012; Allen, 2014). All the same, findings from this newspaper bespeak that although fewer immature people reported bullying, those who did confided in an developed. Young people take identified that a variety of supports are required to tackle bullying and that adults demand to mind and work with them so nuanced bullying behaviors are not recognized as "normal" behaviors. Within the data presented in this paper, "banter" was portrayed as "normal" behavior. Young people did not specify what behaviors they regarded as "banter," but suggested that when banter is repeated and intentional the lines are blurred almost what is bullying and what is banter.

Exploring bullying nuances in this newspaper, was enhanced past the involvement of young people in the enquiry procedure who had a unique "insider" perspective about what it is like to be a young person at present and how bullying is currently affecting young people. In studies 1 and four, young people were "agile respondents" (Bragg and Fielding, 2005) and provided adults with their ain unique perspectives on bullying. It could exist argued that study one did not involve the participation of immature people. All the same, this report informed the basis of the subsequent studies due to the discrepancies noted in the literature about how bullying is understood between adults and immature people, besides as the lack of young people's voice and opportunity to participate in the reviewed inquiry. Appropriately, young people'south data as "active respondents" informed adult understanding and led to future piece of work involving more active research engagement from other immature people. Participation in study four provided an opportunity for young people to contribute to future participatory research based on lived experiences equally well as informing policy makers of the effects bullying has on the lives of immature people (O'Brien, 2017). In studies ii and three, immature people were involved further along Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum equally "co-researchers" and "students as researchers" with these roles shifting and moving dependent on the context of the project at the time (O'Brien et al., 2018a). These young researchers brought unique knowledge to the projects (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018) that could non be accessed elsewhere. Perspectives offered by the young researchers supported adults in understanding more about traditional and cyber-bullying from their perspectives. Furthermore, this noesis can be added to other, quantitative studies to further sympathise why bullying happens alongside bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes.

Conclusion

Findings from the four studies offer an alternative perspective to how bullying is understood past young people. Complexities in defining bullying have been further uncovered every bit understanding is informed by private factors, every bit well as wider social and relational contexts (Horton, 2011; Schott and Sondergaard, 2014). This has implications for the type of support young people crave. This newspaper highlights how definitions of bullying shift in response to relational and contextual aspects deemed of import to young people. Considering of this, further nuances were uncovered through the enquiry process itself equally the respective studies showed discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and betwixt young people'south groups.

These understandings can human action as a starting point for young people and adults to collaborate in inquiry which seeks to understand bullying and the context to which it occurs. Furthermore, such collaborations enable adults to conjecture and understand the complexities associated with bullying from the perspective of those at the center. There is a need for boosted participatory inquiry projects involving such collaborations where adults and young people tin can learn from each other likewise as combining findings from dissimilar methodologies to enable a more than comprehensive pic of the issues for young people to sally. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of bullying among and betwixt young people, specifically in relation to the contextual and relational factors underscoring perceptions of bullying.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to whatever qualified researcher.

Ethics Argument

Upstanding approval was granted for all iv studies from the Kinesthesia of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care at the Anglia Ruskin University. The research was conducted on the premise of Gillick competency significant that young people (in these studies over the age of 12 years) could consent for themselves to participate. Parents/carers were aware the study was happening and received information sheets explaining the procedure.

Author Contributions

The writer confirms existence the sole correspondent of this work and has approved information technology for publication.

Funding

These four studies were conducted at the Anglia Ruskin University. Study one was role of a wider masters degree funded by the Anglia Ruskin University, Study 2 was funded by a group of young people convened past the National Children'southward Bureau with funding from the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom). Study 3 was a wider Doctoral report funded by the Anglia Ruskin University and Study four was also funded by the Anglia Ruskin University.

Disharmonize of Interest Statement

The author declares that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of whatsoever commercial or financial relationships that could be construed every bit a potential conflict of involvement.

Acknowledgments

I would similar to thank Dr. Grace Spencer, Ruskin Fellow at the Anglia Ruskin University for providing the critical read of this manuscript and offering constructive feedback. I would also like to give thanks the ii independent reviewers for their feedback on the drafts of this manuscript.

Footnotes

1. ^ These findings focus on perceptions and data from the young people in the iv studies. For a full give-and-take on adult perceptions please refer to the individual studies.

References

Allen, M. (2014). Local Action on Health Inequalities: Building Children and Young People's Resilience in Schools, London: Public Wellness England.

Google Scholar

Beresford, P. (2006). Making the connections with direct feel: from the western front to user-controlled inquiry. Educ. Action Res. 14, 161–170.

Google Scholar

Black, Southward., Weinles, D., and Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to end bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice viii, 138–147. doi: ten.1177/1541204009349401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banal, D., and Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students' voices in PAR. Educ. Action Res. 15, 337–349. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514259

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Boulton, M. J., and Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school Pupils' involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 17, 331–345. doi: 10.1177/0143034396174003

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L., and Taylor, J. (2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 215, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bragg, S., and Fielding, M. (2005). "It's an equal matter. It'southward well-nigh achieving together: student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality," in Improving Schools Through Collaborative Inquiry, eds H. Street, and J. Temperley, (London: Continuum), 105–135.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, 5. (2006). Using thematic assay in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Google Scholar

Canty, J., Stubbe, K., Steers, D., and Collings, S. (2016). The trouble with bullying–deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a kid-centred investigation into Children'south use of social media. Child. Soc. 30, 48–58. doi: 10.1111/chso.12103

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Coyne, I. (2010). Inquiry with children and immature people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Child. Soc. 24, 227–237.

Google Scholar

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria accommodate to teenagers' perception of bullying? A role-based assay. J. Interpers. Violence 27, 1889–1910. doi: 10.1177/0886260511431436

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Davey, C. (2011). Evaluation of the PEAR Project. London: National Children'due south Bureau.

Google Scholar

deLara, E. Westward. (2012). Why adolescents Don't disembalm incidents of bullying and harassment. J. Sch. Violence 11, 288–305. doi: x.1080/15388220.2012.705931

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students' and school staff'due south use of the established bullying definition. Educ. Res. 60, 157–170. doi: ten.1080/00131881.2018.1454263

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Espelage, D. L. (2018). Agreement the complication of school swell involvement. Chautauqua J. 2:20.

Google Scholar

Forsberg, C., Forest, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., et al. (2018). Students' views of factors affecting their eyewitness behaviors in response to schoolhouse bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 33, 127–142. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox, R. (2013). Resisting participation: critiquing participatory inquiry methodologies with young people. J. Youth Stud. 16, 986–999. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.815698

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Griffin, R. S., and Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: current empirical findings and future directions for inquiry. Aggr. Violent Behav. nine, 379–400. doi: 10.1016/s1359-1789(03)00033-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guerin, S., and Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils' definitions of bullying. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 17, 249–261. doi: 10.1007/bf03173535

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Horton, P. (2011). School bullying and social and moral orders. Child. Soc. 25, 268–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00377.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huang, F. Fifty., and Cornell, D. One thousand. (2015). The impact of definition and question club on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychol. Assess. 27:1484. doi: 10.1037/pas0000149

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

James, A. (2007). Giving phonation to children's voices: practices and bug, pitfalls and potentials. Am. Anthropol. 109, 261–272. doi: ten.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jones, A. (2004). "Involving children and yong people as researchers," in Doing Enquiry with Children and Young People, eds Southward. Fraser, V. Lewis, South. Ding, Thou. Kellett, and C. Robinson, (London: Sage Publications), 113–130.

Google Scholar

La Fontaine, J. (1991). Bullying: The Child'south View – an Assay of Telephone Calls to ChildLIne about Bullying. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Google Scholar

Lambert, V., and Glacken, G. (2011). Engaging with children in inquiry: theoretical and applied implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs. Ideals xviii, 781–801. doi: x.1177/0969733011401122

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maunder, R. E., and Crafter, Southward. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggr. Violent Behav. 38, xiii–20. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.ten.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., and Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educ. Res. 52, 263–282. doi: x.1080/00131881.2010.504062

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moore, S., and Maclean, R. (2012). Victimization, friendship and resilience: crossing the land in-between. Pastor. Care Educ. 30, 147–163. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.679956

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., and del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Rev. 6, 114–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.ten

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Novick, R. M., and Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: the bear on of students reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educ. Psychol. 30, 283–296. doi: 10.1080/01443410903573123

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Brien, N. (2009). Secondary school teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying in the UK: a systematic review. Evid. Policy 5, 399–426.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

O'Brien, N. (2014). "I Didn't Want to be Known every bit a Snitch": Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private 24-hour interval and Boarding School. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition. Suffolk: University Campus Suffolk, 86–96.

Google Scholar

O'Brien, North. (2017). An Exploratory Report of Bullied Young People's Self-Exclusion from Schoolhouse. Evidence: Presented at Meetings of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying 2011-2016. Project Report. All Party Parliamentary Grouping on Bullying. Bachelor at: http://arro.anglia.ac.britain/id/eprint/702024 (accessed September 20, 2018).

Google Scholar

O'Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2007). So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research projection with children and young people. Educ. Activity Res. J. xv, 385–402. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514382

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2010). The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Immature People'south Mental Health. Projection Study. Chelmsford: Anglia Ruskin University.

Google Scholar

O'Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2013). Non sticks and stones only tweets and texts: findings from a national cyberbullying projection. Pastor. Care Educ. 31, 53–65. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.747553

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Brien, N., Moules, T., and Munn-Giddings, C. (2018a). "Negotiating the research space betwixt young people and adults in a PAR study exploring school bullying," in Reciprocal Relationships and Well-Being: Implications for Social Piece of work and Social Policy, eds Chiliad. Torronen, C. Munn-Giddings, and L. Tarkiainen, (Oxon: Routledge), 160–175. doi: 10.4324/9781315628363-11

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

O'Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018b). The repercussions of reporting bullying: some experiences of students at an independent secondary school. Pastor. Care Educ. 36, 29–43. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2017.1422004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oliver, C., and Candappa, Chiliad. (2007). Bullying and the politics of 'telling'. Oxford Rev. Educ. 33, 71–86. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094594

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: facts and intervention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 196–200. doi: ten.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ozer, E. J., and Wright, D. (2012). Across school spirit: the effects of youth-led participatory action research in two urban loftier schools. J. Res. Adolesc. 22, 267–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Parsons, S., Abbott, C., McKnight, Fifty., and Davies, C. (2015). High take a chance nevertheless invisible: conflicting narratives on social enquiry involving children and young people, and the part of inquiry ethics committees. Br. Educ. Res. J. 41, 709–729. doi: 10.1002/berj.3160

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. Southward., Patel, S., and Kral, G. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse eighteen, three–sixteen. doi: ten.1177/1524838015588502

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, Thou., Arai, Fifty., Rodgers, Yard., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Eur. Soc. Res. Council Methods Plan. doi: 10.13140/two.ane.1018.4643

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Schott, R. M., and Sondergaard, D. M. (2014). "Introduction: new approaches to school bullying," in School Bullying: New Theories in Context, eds R. Chiliad. Schott, and D. M. Sondergaard, (Massachusetts, MA: Cambridge University Printing), 1–17.

Google Scholar

Skrzypiec, Yard., Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., and Pereira, B. (2011). School bullying past 1 or more ways: does it thing and how do students cope? Sch. Psychol. Int. 32, 288–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402308

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., and Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a 14-land international comparison. Child Dev. 73, 1119–1133. doi: x.1111/1467-8624.00461

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spears, B., Taddeo, C., Collin, P., Swist, T., Razzell, M., Borbone, V., et al. (2016). Safe and Well Online: Learnings from Four Social Marketing Campaigns for Youth Wellbeing. Available at: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36405/datastream/PDF/view (accessed July 1, 2019).

Google Scholar

Stoudt, B. Thousand. (2009). The role of language & discourse in the investigation of privilege: using participatory activity research to discuss theory. Dev. Methodol. Interrupt. Power Urban Rev. 41, 7–28.

Google Scholar

Thomson, P., and Gunter, H. (2008). Researching Bullying with students: a lens on everyday life in an 'innovative schoolhouse'. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 12, 185–200. doi: ten.1080/13603110600855713

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, Thou., et al. (2008). Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking most the same thing? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32, 486–495. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095553

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

warnerbradoet1971.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984/full

Share this post