Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/bleprints/BP_Criteria.pdf downloaded 06.29.2012.

  2. http://dartington.org.uk/projects/what-works-evidence-standards/.

References

  • Allington, R. L. (2005/2006). What counts as evidence in evidence based education? Reading Today, 23(3), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A., & Ogden, T. (2008). The evolution of evidence-based practices. European Journal of Behavioural Analyses, 9(1), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random effects on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Evidence, evidence everywhere. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ertesvåg, S. K., & Roland, E. (submitted). Professional cutures and rates of bullying.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization (Vol. 2009). The Campbell Collaboration.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, Routledge: Teacher College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gough, D., & Elbourne, D. (2002). Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and democratic debate. Social Policy and Society, 1, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Greene, J. C. (2012). Engaging critical issues in social inquiry by mixing methods. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 755–773. doi:10.1177/0002764211433794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Guyatt, G., & Rennie, D. (2002). Users’ guide to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kowalski, T. (2009). Need to address evidence-based practice in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The concept of evidence in evidence-based practice. Educational Theory, 61(5), 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Muir Gray, J. M. (1996). Evidence-based healthcare (p. 1996). London: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4(11), 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 527–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roland, E. (2011). The broken curve: Effects of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(5), 383–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace. New York: Columbia University, Teacher College.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generealized cuadal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2011). Utvärdering av metoder mot mobbning. Stockholm.

  • Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPR. (2004). Standards of Evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination Falls Church. VA: Society for Prevention research.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement., 10(4), 503–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Invited editorial: randomised controlled trials in childrenæs services. Journal of Children’s Services, 3(1), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trybus, M. (2007). Understanding scientifically based research: A mandate or decision tool. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin(summer), 5–8.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce bullying in school. Stockholm: Brå- brottsförebyggande rådet.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrun K. Ertesvåg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ertesvåg, S.K. Improving anti-bullying initiatives: The role of an expanded research agenda. J Educ Change 16, 349–370 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9232-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9232-2

Keywords

  • Evidence-based practice
  • Evidence-based preventive programmes
  • School-based intervention
  • Hierarchy of evidence
  • Anti-byllying program
  • Bullying prevention