Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 349–370 | Cite as

Improving anti-bullying initiatives: The role of an expanded research agenda

  • Sigrun K. Ertesvåg
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Bullying is one of the most challenging issues facing students and schools worldwide. The disastrous consequences for victims and offenders are experienced daily by teachers and students and documented by numerous studies. The demand for evidence-based practice (EBP) in schools’ anti-bullying work has increased in the last decade, consequently evoking considerable debate. Traditionally, evaluations of EBP and evidence-based preventive programs have addressed the impact on outcomes that are measured according to a hierarchy of evidence. The question of “What works?” is only one question among many that are relevant to policy makers and practitioners. The author suggests broadening the approaches to evaluation by developing a knowledge base grounded in research methods and strategies that give voice to the participants as well as provide sound empirical evidence of causal relationships. Research on anti-bullying interventions provides insight into the debate surrounding EBP in general.

Keywords

Evidence-based practice Evidence-based preventive programmes School-based intervention Hierarchy of evidence Anti-byllying program Bullying prevention 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is partly funded by grants from The Research Council of Norway, Project number 209223/V11. The author is grateful for the support.

References

  1. Allington, R. L. (2005/2006). What counts as evidence in evidence based education? Reading Today, 23(3), 16.Google Scholar
  2. Axford, N., & Morpeth, L. (2013). Evidence-based programs in children’s services: A critical appraisal. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(2), 268–277. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.10.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” Won’t Work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Why “What Works” Still Won’t Work: From evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biglan, A., & Ogden, T. (2008). The evolution of evidence-based practices. European Journal of Behavioural Analyses, 9(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
  6. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014). Nordic schools in a time of change. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic education model—‘A school for all’ encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 1–14). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Blossing, U., & Söderström, Å. (2014). A school for every child in Sweden. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic education model—‘A School for All’ encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 17–34). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random effects on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust.Google Scholar
  9. Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Evidence, evidence everywhere. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (But Still Limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies, P. (2007). Types of knowledge for evidence-based policy. Presentation to NORFACE seminar on Evidence and Policy. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 26th November 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J. A., Olin, S., et al. (2008). Maximizing the implemenaion quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(3), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dynarski, M., & Del Grosso, P. (2008). Random assignment in programme evaluation and intervention research: Questions and answers. Journal of Children’s Services, 3(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ertesvåg, S.K. (2013) Professional Cultures in schools and level of bullying. Paper presented at the 26th International Congress on Congress on School Effectiveness and School Improvement (ICSEI). Santiago, Chile, January 3rd–6th.Google Scholar
  18. Ertesvåg, S. K., & Roland, E. (submitted). Professional cutures and rates of bullying.Google Scholar
  19. Ertesvåg, S. K., Roland, P., Vaaland, G. S., Størksen, S., & Veland, J. (2010). The challenge of continuation. Schools’ continuation of the Respect program. Journal of Educational Change, 11(4), 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ertesvåg, S. K., & Vaaland, G. S. (2007). Prevention and reduction of behavioural problems in school: An evaluation of the respect-program. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 713–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization (Vol. 2009). The Campbell Collaboration.Google Scholar
  22. Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, Routledge: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2007). School violence. In D. Flannery, A. Vazsonsyi & I. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213–228.Google Scholar
  26. Gough, D., & Elbourne, D. (2002). Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and democratic debate. Social Policy and Society, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., et al. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation. Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2005). The study of implemetnation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and practice: U.S: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Centre for Menatal Health Services.Google Scholar
  29. Greene, J. C. (2012). Engaging critical issues in social inquiry by mixing methods. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 755–773. doi: 10.1177/0002764211433794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation (No. 74, pp. 5–17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Greene, J. C., Lipsey, M. W., Schwandt, T. A., Smith, N. L., & Tharp, R. G. (2007). Method choice: Five discussant commentaries. New Directions for Evaluation, (113), 111–127.Google Scholar
  32. Guyatt, G., & Rennie, D. (2002). Users’ guide to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association.Google Scholar
  33. Hamilton, J. (2005). The answerable question and a hierarchy of evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(6), 596–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haynes, R. B. (2004). An evidence-based medicine perspective on the origins, obectives, limitations, and future developments of the movement. In L. Lemieux-Charles & F. Champagne (Eds.), Using knowledge and evidence in health care: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 227–241). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kowalski, T. (2009). Need to address evidence-based practice in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The concept of evidence in evidence-based practice. Educational Theory, 61(5), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J., Mcleod, C., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quaterly, 81(2), 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levant, R. F. (2005). Report of the 2005 Presidential task force on evidence-based practice. http://www.apa.org/practice/resources/evidence/evidence-based-report.pdf.
  39. Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long strage trip it’s been”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Midthassel, U. V., & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2008). Schools implementing zero—The process of implementing an anti-bullying programme in six Norwegian compuslury schools. Journal of Education Change, 9(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moller, J., Vedoy, G., Presthus, A. M., & Skedsmo, G. (2009). Successful principalship in Norway: Sustainable ethos and incremental changes? Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mørch, W.-T., Neumer, S.-P., Holth, P., & Eng, H. (2008). Ungsinn: Kriterier for klassifisering av evidencenivå dokumentasjonsgrad. Tromsø: Forebyggingsenheterm, Regionssenter for barn og unges psykiske helse (RBUP Nord), Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
  43. Muir Gray, J. M. (1996). Evidence-based healthcare (p. 1996). London: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  44. Nickerson, A. B., & Brock, S. E. (2011). Measurement and evaluation of school crisis prevention and intervention: Introduction to special issue. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2010.519261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordahl, T., Egelund, N., Samdal, O., Sørlie, M.-A., Brunstad, P. O., & Bø, A. K. (2000). Vurdering av program og tiltak for å redusere problematferd og utvikle sosial kompetanse. Oslo: Kirke-, utdannings og forskningsdepartementet og Barne- og familiedepartementet.Google Scholar
  46. Nordahl, T., Gravrok, Ø., Knutsmoen, H., Larsen, T. M. B., & Rørnes, K. (Eds.). (2006). Forebyggende innsatser i skolen. Oslo: Sosial og helsedirektorartet/Utdanningsdirektoratet.Google Scholar
  47. Nutley, S., Jung, T., & Walter, I. (2008). The many forms of research-informed practice: A framework for mapping diversity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2012). What counts as good evidence? Provocation paper for the alliance for useful evidence. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/A4UEprovocationpaper2.pdf.
  49. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2009). Promoting evidence-based practice: Models and mechanisms from cross-sector review. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 552–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oakley, A., Strange, V., Toroyan, T., Wiggins, M., Roberts, I., & Stephenson, J. (2003). Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: Three recent U. K. examples. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 170–189. doi: 10.1177/0002716203254765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus bullying prevention programme: design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bylling in school (pp. 13–36). Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4(11), 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oterkiil, T.C. (submitted) Exploring elements of leadership as a key factor influencing schools’ readiness and capacity to implement school based interventions. Doctoral thesis. Univeristy of Stavanger.Google Scholar
  55. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 527–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bulling prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
  57. Ritter, G., et al. (2012). Using the proper tool for the task: RCTs are the gold standard for estimating programme effects—a response to Stewart-Brown. Journal of Children’s Services, 7(2), 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roland, E. (2011). The broken curve: Effects of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(5), 383–388.Google Scholar
  59. Roland, E., Bru, E., Midthassel, U. V., & Vaaland, G. S. (2010). The Zero programme against bullying: Effects of the programme in the context of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying. Social Psychology of Education: An international Journal, 13(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace. New York: Columbia University, Teacher College.Google Scholar
  61. Ryan, W., & Smith, J. (2009). Antibullying programs in schools: How effective are evaluation practices? Prevention Science, 10(3), 248–259. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0128-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., & Gray, J. A. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sammons, P. (2010). The contribution of mixed methods to recent research on educational effectiveness. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generealized cuadal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  65. Shadish, W. R., & Rindskopf, D. M. (2007). Methods for evidence-based practice: Quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shahjahan, R. A. (2011). Decolonizing the evidence-based education and policy movement: Revealing the colonial vestiges in educational policy, research, and neoliberal reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skolverket. (2011). Utvärdering av metoder mot mobbning. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  68. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education-what works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Slocum, T. A., Spencer, T. D., & Detrich, R. (2012). Best available evidence: Three complementary approaches. Education & Treatment of Children, 35(2), 153–181. doi: 10.1353/etc.2012.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). THe effectiveness of whole -school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 548–561.Google Scholar
  72. Spiel, C., & Strohmeier, D. (2012). Evidence-based practice and policy: When researchers, policy makers, and practitioners learn how to work together. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(1), 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. SPR. (2004). Standards of Evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination Falls Church. VA: Society for Prevention research.Google Scholar
  74. Stewart-Brown, S., Anthony, R., Wilson, L., Einstanley, S., Stallard, N., Snooks, H., et al. (2011). Should randomised controlled trials be the ‘gold stantard’ for research on preventive interventions for children? Journal of Children’s Services, 6(4), 228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement., 10(4), 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2010). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it. Churchill Livingstone, Edingburgh: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  78. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Overview over contemporary issues in mixed methods design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 1–41). Los Angeles: Sage Publisher.Google Scholar
  79. Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Invited editorial: randomised controlled trials in childrenæs services. Journal of Children’s Services, 3(1), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Trybus, M. (2007). Understanding scientifically based research: A mandate or decision tool. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin(summer), 5–8.Google Scholar
  81. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims & Offenders, 3(2–3), 289-312. doi:  10.1080/15564880802143397.
  82. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(1), 13–24. doi: 10.1108/17596599200900003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27–56. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce bullying in school. Stockholm: Brå- brottsförebyggande rådet.Google Scholar
  85. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Losel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 405–418. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vreeman, R. C., & Caroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Webster, R. S. (2009). How evidence-based teaching practices are challenged by a Deweyan approach to education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Charting a new course for the U. S. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Oreleans.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Centre for Learning Environment and Behavioural Research in EducationUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options