The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition

Abstract

Background: Previous research has found that bullying is often defined differently by students, staff and researchers, leading researchers to call for a more consistent use of the term in practice to enable better intervention and measurement. However, little is known about the consequences of a more consistent use of the term in school. Purpose: The article examines the consequences of schools adopting an exact definition of bullying. Sample: Twenty Norwegian primary and lower secondary schools were selected from a survey (n = 455). The schools were characterised by a strong culture of bullying prevention, and their staff and students knew and used the same authoritative bullying definition. Four schools were then selected for closer ethnographic study. Design and methods: Interviews were conducted with students, teachers, support staff and school management. The interviews were analysed qualitatively, using a grounded theory approach. Results: For school staff, the term 'bullying' was construed as rigid and possessing an inherent power that is manifested through the way the term controls adults' actions. Teachers viewed students' use of the term as too wide. They emphasised the need to teach students the established definition, as students' overuse of the term may lead to the word's diminishing impact for those who are in real need of help. Nevertheless, many of the educators stated that few students report bullying. Both school staff and students displayed a sense of certainty when identifying what counts as bullying. Students' recognition of the power of the word was apparent in the way they used the term as a tool for social positioning. Conclusions: By way of the status of a bullying definition as an established, researchbased definition, it gains a potent power for management, teachers and students. Its power Page 3 of 33 lies in the fact that the use of the term gives rights and responsibilities, determines guilt, and confers blame and status. Unwanted effects of a strict control of the bullying term may involve the risk of missing cases and the risk that students use the term as a tool in the power relations between the students themselves.

Discrepancies in school staff’s awareness of bullying

“…Bullying may also fall under the staff radar due to a lack of awareness, even in cases where they are aware of the events that students may experience as bullying. Teachers may regard it as merely 'friendly teasing', as something students 'ought to put up with', or they may define what they see as a 'conflict', rather than bullying (Eriksen, 2018), and, therefore, not something that they are required to do anything about. The discrepancy may also be augmented by the way the questions are posed in the survey.…”

“…The discrepancy may also be augmented by the way the questions are posed in the survey. Whereas the students are asked about specific events and encounters, without the term 'bullying' being used, questions to staff use the term 'bullying', which is a word that for many educators is understood as being more restrictive and more serious -this may perhaps make them less willing to define actions as 'bullying', even if they are aware of them (Eriksen, 2018).…”

“…Previous research has identified several factors that prevent students from reporting incidents related to bullying: these include the shame associated with being victimised by peers (Eriksen & Lyng, 2018b;Strøm et al, 2018); the lack of trust that the teacher will be able to stop (rather than aggravate) the bullying; and the fear that adults' responses will be ineffective or insensitive, and that peers will respond negatively to those who disclose that bullying is occurring by worsening or increasing the frequency with which students are bullied (Oliver & Candappa, 2007). That much bullying goes unreported is also due to the fact that knowledge about the occurrence of bullying varies between students, educators and parents (Ramsey et al, 2016;Totura et al, 2009), and that students, teachers and principals do not necessarily regard bullying in the same way, even when they are working with the same definition (Eriksen, 2018).…”

Social Pedagogues’ Definitions Of Three Types Of Bullying

“…Non-teaching staff members' definitions of school bullying often differ from the definitions commonly used by researchers (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001); likewise, non-teaching staff' and students' definitions also tended to differ (Eriksen, 2018;Maunder, Harrop, & Tattersall. 2010).…”

“…Results showed that adolescents' and adults' descriptions of school bullying were consistent in terms of defining indirect behaviors more likely than direct behaviors, https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.11.1 Corresponding Author: Kristi Kõiv Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2357-1330 4 however both adult samples defined the direct and indirect behaviors as bullying more frequently than pupils and perceived bullying behaviors as more serious than pupils. Eriksen (2018) conducted interviews among group of students and school staff (teachers, principals and school support staff) members by asking to define school bullying. Results reveal that school staff construed a rigid definition reflecting the power to decide how to follow their intervention practice and students used the term as a tool for social positioning.…”