Exploring School Bullying: Designing the Research Question with Young Co-Researchers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting Participatory Action Research (PAR) article. The authors conducted an ‘exploration study’ using a qualitative online questionnaire to ascertain the core-bullying issues in schools. Misogynistic behaviour was a particular concern. This paper contributes to the literature on hearing participants' views as well as on actively including students in designing and developing research foundations. I have some suggestions for improvement of the paper.
- I needed to read this paper several times to grasp the primary scene with this paper: bullying or PAR. The authors start out by putting a lot of effort into bullying and bullying definitions. In terms of research interest, this issue is of minor interest compared to the methods used, i.e. PAR. I think that the balance between bullying and PAR needs to be reconsidered because from min point of view, there is too much about bullying, and the issue it relates to is of minor novelty and interest. The method however is interesting and should be the one highlight.
- In relation to the above comments, I think the authors need to be clear about what this paper contributes with, and why it is important.
Methods:
- I suggest the authors add the questionnaire as a supplement for transparency.
Discussion:
As there is no Results section in conventional meaning, I understand that PAR is in focus which strengthens my argument of putting less effort into the bullying issue. The same goes for the discussion - the emphasis lies on PAR (which I agree upon).
In summary, I would suggest restructuring the paper, putting PAR in focus, less effort on bullying and be clear about the contribution and importance.
Author Response
Please see the attached - due to some similarities in the comments we have dealt with each point in relation to where they were made in the paper e.g. 'Introduction' etc.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After careful scrutinizing of the content, it has been observed that the paper is good but has a scope of further improvement in the following ways-
1.Authors are required to Check out the Keywords section. This section is incomplete.
2.Since the abstract has already been published as the part of the conference proceedings. Authors are advised to cite the published abstract in the article.
3.Proper formatting required in the whole paper and especially in the reference section.
Author Response
Please see the attached - due to some similarities in the comments we have dealt with each point in relation to where they were made in the paper e.g. 'Introduction' etc.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment:
The paper started with a solid review of the literature and established a strong rationale for including students in the process of formulating research questions for a study into bullying. The research questions that were developed through this project provide a strong basis for the next phase of the action research cycle, although it is not clear whether this is part of a broader PAR project, or a small stand-alone project – this needs to be clarified. The introductory section provided some solid discussion of the range of definitions and understandings of bullying that take the reader beyond stereotypes and shallow interpretations of a complex problem. The theoretical framing of the methodology needs to be strengthened, and some sections of the analysis come across as more descriptive than analytical, with quotes from the questionnaire needed to support the claims made about the findings.
Section 1.2:
- Consistent use of past tense is needed
- Spell out UNESCO and WABF in full first time, followed by the acronyms in brackets
- The last sentence of paragraph 2 on page 3 seems to relate to the definition proposed by UNESCO and WABF, but this doesn’t seem to be stated in the previous section. I was expecting the definition provided by Rivers, Duncan and Besag (2007) to be used, given its prominence in the end of the literature review. I suggest including the definition you have focused on at the end of the literature review, and unpack this definition to add clarity to your discussion.
- Also re: paragraph 2 on page 3: are social aggression and public humiliation normative values? If so, how is this shown to the be case?
- The discussion on the differences in adult and child constructions of bullying needs to be unpacked a little more – if they did not encompass repetition, power imbalance and intent what did they encompass?
- The final para in Section 1.2 discusses the debate in relation to involving young people in research. There is very little debate now about whether to include young people in research, but there is considerable discussion of how young people can best be included in research. See for example,
Camino, L. (2005). Pitfalls and promising practices of youth-adult partnerships: An evaluator's reflections. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20043
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing education: youth participatory action research in motion. Routledge.
Groundwater-Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrell, D. (2015). Participatory Research with Children and Young People. SAGE Publications.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2015). From data source to co-researchers? Tracingthe shift from ‘student voice’ to student–teacher partnerships in Educational Action Research. In (pp. 1-18): Routledge.
Mirra, N., Garcia, A., & Morrell, E. (2016). Doing youth participatory action research : transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Mitra, D. L. (2009). Collaborating with Students: Building Youth‐Adult Partnerships in Schools. American journal of education, 115(3), 407-436. https://doi.org/10.1086/597488
Mitra, D. L., & Gross, S. J. (2009). Increasing Student Voice in High School Reform. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4), 522-543. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209334577
Section 2:
⁃ It becomes unclear in the beginning of this section whether the author/s are using a PAR or YPAR methodology. Try reversing the structure of the writing here so that the other approaches are outlined first, followed by a clear focus on the methodology used in the study. It may also be worth noting that YPAR is an explicitly pedagogical practice (See Mirra et al., 2016)
⁃ On page 4 it becomes clear that the study used a PAR methodology
⁃ The methodology section needs more robust discussion of PAR and its underlying theoretical framing, as well as the action research cycle and the involvement of the staff as a steering group. Were any students included in the steering group, or did this only consist of staff? Some discussion of power relations is also warranted here.
⁃ Consider whether some discussion of youth-adult partnership may be warranted if the staff and students worked together – at present, this isn’t clear.
⁃ It would be worth including some discussion of the literature on student involvement in data analysis, as there is some debate around, for example, whether data analysis conducted by students removes the right of the researcher to academic and intelectual freedom. See for example,
Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power Relations in Qualitative Research. Qualitative health research, 19(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306
Section 2.1:
⁃ It is unclear what is meant by a ‘live study’ – does it relate to lived experiences? Make sure this is clear
⁃ It is unclear why the word Action is capitalised and in inverted commas. Does this relate to the ‘action’ part of the PAR cycle? This would appear to the be case, but it isn’t clear
Section 2.1.1:
⁃ It would be worth mentioning that the study took place during the pandemic earlier in the paper, during the discussion of the context.
⁃ Remove the uncessary comma after questionaire – 4th line from the bottom.
⁃ Incorrect use of semi colon after ‘… honest responses …’
⁃ It is important to include quotes from the questionnaire to support your claims E.g. ‘the importance of a safe environment and the need for belonging’ – what in the responses (and whose responses) suggested this?
⁃ Beginning of page 6 – remove uncessary commas after ‘… two authors …’
⁃ The end of this section needs more robust discussion – what suggested the normalisation of these behaviours, comments etc.? Again, draw from your data to include quotes to support your claims.
Section 2.1.2:
⁃ How were the two groups recruited? Does self-selecting mean that the researchers approached them directly? This seems to be the case, but best to make it clear.
⁃ It seems that there was only one student researcher working with several adults on the steering group – is this correct? If so, how was this power imbalance addressed? *Edit: I see this is addressed in the Discussion section
⁃ Some discussion of why training was included is warranted here. Although it may seem obvious, there is some debate about whether this should happen and should therefore be justified.
Section 2.1.3:
- Examples of quotes about racism, misogyny and homophobia should be included to back up your claims
- Consider whether some critique of the ‘zero tolerance’ approach is warranted here
- The following sentence doesn’t make sense: ‘Although an issue in itself, the diversity on the staff team was also not the core bullying issue’.
- How was misogyny decided upon? Again, quotes would strengthen your argument here.
- Remove uncessary comma after ‘… definition of misogyny … ‘
- Some examples of quotes from these contextual conversations would strengthen the discussion > what was this narrative?
- How was sexism normalised at the school? Evidence is needed to support this assertion
Section 3.1:
- It would be helpful to have an idea of what these co-developed rules were
- Were there specific examples of where this imbalance occurred, necessitating going back to the rules?
- In their book, ‘Teacher Voice: Amplifying success’, Quaglia and Lande (2017) discuss why student voice and teacher voice both matter and how they are similar
- How was the semantic analysis conducted? This should be covered in the methodology section
Author Response
Please see the attached - due to some similarities in the comments we have dealt with each point in relation to where they were made in the paper e.g. 'Introduction' etc.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe the manuscript has improved substantially, and I am happy with the answers.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the feedback to strengthen the original paper, particularly in its methodological underpinnings. This paper presents an engaging and timely discussion of how adults can include young people in substantive research, which in this case, includes students in developing the research question - an approach that, as pointed out by the authors, appears to be somewhat neglected in the current literature. I do have one minor comment on the changes - to adjust the sentence: 'Although there is a paucity of literature about whether to include young people in research .. '. It may be better to highlight that the debate has moved on from whether to include young people, to how best to include them. At present, it reads as though this was never up for debate, which is not the case. However, it is entirely up to the authors whether they feel this needs to be changed. Overall, this paper makes a thoughtful contribution to current discussions of participatory methodologies.
