The Problem
Despite decades of research into cyber and traditional bullying (C/B) they remain global, socially aggressive relationship problems in school settings (Smith & O’Higgins Norman, Reference Smith and O’Higgins Norman2021). Cyberbullying (Cb), while grounded in traditional bullying with its deliberate intent to hurt or harm, and power differentials between the parties involved (Olweus, Reference Olweus1978), has brought new dimensions and complexities to an old problem with its unique characteristics due to the changing nature and use of digital technologies. Repetition, for example, is one aspect that operates differently in the online setting (Campbell & Bauman, Reference Campbell, Bauman, Campbell and Bauman2018).
Evaluation of the research evidence base of C/B prevention and intervention programs and strategies demonstrates varying degrees of success (Gaffney, Farrington et al., Reference Gaffney, Farrington and White2021; Gaffney, Ttofi et al., Reference Gaffney, Ttofi and Farrington2019, Reference Gaffney, Ttofi and Farrington2021b). While strategies and programs have been found to reduce the incidence of bullying and victimisation in school settings overall (Gaffney, Farrington et al., Reference Gaffney, Farrington, Espelage and Ttofi2019), it is only certain elements and/or approaches that have actually made the difference: some contexts, some ages (primary vs. secondary), one gender more than the other, or individuals and/or groups (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim and Sadek2010; Evans et al., Reference Evans, Fraser and Cotter2014; Jiminez-Barbero et al., Reference Jimenez-Barbero, Ruiz-Hernandez, Llor-Zaragoza, Perez-Garcia and Llor-Esteban2016; Merrell et al., Reference Merrell, Gueldner, Ross and Isava2008; Polanin et al., Reference Polanin, Espelage and Pigott2012; Rigby & Johnson, Reference Rigby and Johnson2016; Ttofi & Farrington, Reference Ttofi and Farrington2011; Yeager et al., Reference Yeager, Fong, Lee and Espelage2015).
Gaffney et al.’s (Reference Gaffney, Ttofi and Farrington2021a) meta-analysis of ‘what works’ found the socio-ecologically based components, including a whole-school approach, relevant policies, classroom rules, parent information, informal peer involvement, working with victims, cooperative group work and mental health approaches made a significant difference in reducing bullying perpetration. For bullying-victimisation, however, only informal peer involvement and parent information were significant. Importantly, ‘program richness’ (p. 43) did not significantly predict more desirable outcomes; that is, having many or all aspects or components did not necessarily produce greater effectiveness in reducing or preventing bullying. Overall, this suggests that tailoring initiatives to the relevant contexts and variations in students’ needs may matter more than has been considered up till now.
Indeed, a multitiered system of support (MTSS) approach or framework is commonly used in schools to address different levels and needs in many learning, mental health, and more recently, bullying domains (Batsche, Reference Batsche2014; Downes & Cefai, Reference Downes and Cefai2016; Ey & Spears, Reference Ey and Spears2020). Its premise is that supports need to be tailored and provided at different levels simultaneously: a universal approach for everyone; and at more selective and targeted levels. Tier 1, universal approaches, is designed to reduce risk and increase knowledge, capacity and resilience for the whole student community. Tier 2, selective interventions, focuses on those children and young people (CYP) who have greater needs than the general school population; they may, for example, be at greater risk of engaging in or being targeted by bullying. The third tier, indicated interventions, relates to a smaller group of individuals whose needs are more specific and not met by the first two layers; for example, it may include tailored therapies or approaches with either perpetrators or targets. The third tier is the one that is more likely to involve the school counsellor, although their knowledge and skills are highly relevant for a role as part of the team in the first two tiers.
Early Cb and prevention and intervention research has focused on the emerging digital technologies and contexts of the day — for example, email, chat and websites (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell and Tippett2008), and the relevant behaviours and forms of communication. Early ‘advice’ concerned adults making sure CYP only used desktop technologies for limited periods of time, in open, viewable family spaces rather than alone in bedrooms (Smith & Steffgen, 2013). The advent of more image and video-based apps, social media behemoths and live-streaming has changed the face of bullying using technology, and taken Cb into the current realm and context of the ‘internet of things’ where everyday objects are interconnected and embedded with data-sharing and send-and-receive software. Mobile phones and digital technologies have presented new challenges, changing the way device management is handled: having an ‘always-on computer in their pocket’ has led to some schools and education sectors banning the use of mobile phones during school hours due to them being seen as either distractions to learning, or vehicles for potentially continuous abuse and harassment (Campbell & Third, Reference Campbell and Third2021). Other practical strategies involve not responding immediately, blocking the sender, taking screenshots, and reporting to an adult. These strategies, while still relevant, are reactive responses, largely adult-directed, and rest the weight of responsibility with the targeted individual rather than changing the behaviour of those who are C/B others.
The advent of the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020, with its frequent school, city and state lockdowns, has changed the C/B context yet again. When schools and cities were closed or locked down to prevent spread of the highly contagious virus, online learning or remote, guided learning from home became the norm for weeks at a time. A huge reliance on technologies when in isolation, for both learning and social connections with others, has created a unique natural experiment or situation before and during the pandemic. The impact of this isolation and context on the prevalence of C/B is yet to be fully determined, though there are two potential hypotheses: that in the absence of face-to-face, real-time social encounters, Cb could increase due to the dominance technology would assume in connecting with and maintaining relationships; or due to the lack of face-to-face encounters and no traditional bullying occurring in school settings, that both bullying and Cb would decrease. Vaillancourt et al. (Reference Vaillancourt, Brittain, Krygsman, Farrell, Landon and Pepler2021), in one of the earliest comparative studies, examined the impact of COVID-19 on bullying prevalence rates in a population-based randomised study of 6578 Canadian students from Grades 4–12, finding higher rates of bullying involvement were evident before the pandemic than during for all forms of bullying (general, physical, verbal and social), except for Cb, where there were less pronounced differences. Clearly, context matters, and the on-off schooling context is a new aspect requiring attention.
Given this current ‘hybridised’ context for schooling and therefore C/B, it becomes increasingly apparent that CYP’s lived experiences must be at the centre when designing contemporary strategies. However, it is not only their experiences which matter, but also teachers’ knowledge of their own classroom and school contexts. What does a whole-school approach mean when in the midst of a global pandemic, when CYP are not physically attending school with their peers? When there have been limited or no social interactions face to face, only online or socially distanced encounters, possibly behind masks, does CB increase or decrease? What does it mean for social and emotional connectedness, health and wellbeing when the markers and milestones of friendships and special occasions each year, such as school formals and graduation rites of passage, are postponed or not available?
What is evident from this brief introduction, is that context matters when endeavouring to understand how to prevent or intervene in C/B, whether it be the context of: the setting (class/school/home); the situation (pre and during COVID-19); the technology available; or the peer relationships. Central to these contexts is the lived experience of CYP, and these experiences represent their ‘constant’.
Pepler (Reference Pepler2006) argued that both bullying and Cb are social relationship problems requiring relationship solutions. What is of importance here is how CYP understand their contexts and their relationships relevant to the times and technologies they are employing in their social and educational lives. This understanding is also relevant to teachers and school counsellors for how they might address CB in classroom and school contexts.
CYP today can only conduct their peer, conflictual and romantic relationships in the context of a fluid digital setting. The messiness of C/B (Spears & Kofoed, Reference Spears, Kofoed, Smith and Steffgen2013) as it shifts across the on- and offline continuum points to the real need for understanding CYP’s experiences and the relevance of the socio-ecological settings to them: whole-school and community, classroom, peer group and individual contexts (Espelage & Hong, Reference Espelage, Hong, Mayer and Jimerson2019). This becomes increasingly important in a COVID-19 era, when all learning and social settings have been fractured and impacted. Therefore, teachers, psychologists, school counsellors and parents need to engage closely, listen carefully and learn from CYP as they go about their daily, lived, social and digital realities. They also need to acknowledge their own world view of children and childhood, for their attitude affects their capacity to relinquish and/or shift power in the relationship towards CYP, to support them to become agents of change, co-designers and partners within the research process.
Views of Childhood
Traditionally, children had no voice; historically, they have been silenced and definitely not listened to until relatively recently. Slee et al. (Reference Slee, Campbell and Spears2012, pp. 32–53) outlined Western societies’ adults’ changing views of children and childhood, and it is apparent how these views have shaped how CYP have been seen, ‘heard’ … or not. Historically, children were variously viewed as: property (of God and fathers); or inherently evil and sinful, to be ‘broken’ and ‘moulded’ into obedience (Wesley); or virtuous and inherently good and innocent (Rousseau); or blank slates to be ‘filled’ with learning and knowledge (tabula rasa; Locke); or as slave labour to be exploited prior to and during the industrial revolution. Child labour laws in the 19th century, however, protected children from being exploited, and gradually society’s view of children and childhood changed.
Education became increasingly possible and important; children began attending school with their peers rather than learning from home and family; ‘childhood’ came to be considered a stage or sequence of human development beyond infancy, paving the way for greater understanding of the progression to adulthood and citizenship. The ‘postmodern’ child of the 1960s–70s was seen to be agentic in their own environment, and Elkind’s ‘competent’ child of the mid 1980s heralded the view that children had more capabilities than they were credited with. The ‘wired’ and now ‘wire-less/digital’ child of the last 30 years (1990s–2020s) reflects the most recent generation of CYP who are shaping and being shaped by the online, digital environment in ways that most adults have not previously experienced (Slee et al., Reference Slee, Campbell and Spears2012). Progressively, in sync with changes in society, Western CYP came to be viewed as emerging individuals with a voice, rights and responsibilities, but who also needed guidance and nurturing as they grew and developed in a rapidly changing global and digital society.
Children’s Rights
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) was a turning point in how children were viewed, ushering in a new era. Four core principles set in motion a new attitude towards all children: nondiscrimination, serving their best interests, the right to survival and development, and respecting the views of the child.
What this brief excursion demonstrates is that for several hundred years, CYP were treated and viewed as chattels or commodities by and for adults’ use and direction. By contrast, in the 2020s, children’s right to be heard and listened to is now considered fundamental, yet Lundy (Reference Lundy2007) acknowledges that while adults appear to comply through, for example, consultation and tokenistic participation, they ultimately have the power to ignore CYP’s views. One practical way to ensure this does not happen is to be transparent and feed back to CYP how their views are taken into account so they can see whether they have had any influence or not (Lundy, Reference Lundy2007). This ‘closing the loop’ is an important part of the process that demonstrates CYP’s views have been respected. School counsellors working with students are particularly well placed from their training and ethos to show respect and understanding of CYP.
It stands to reason then that CYP should have voice and input regarding C/B prevention and intervention strategies that aim to change negative behaviours and to impact positively on social and educational outcomes in school settings. Certainly, CYP have been surveyed and interviewed in the past concerning incidence and prevalence of this phenomenon, but does that necessarily translate to their views having influence over policy and practices? It is equally important that their C/B experiences contribute to finding relevant and contextualised understandings to prevent and intervene, but these have often been ignored or trivialised by policy makers as subjective, anecdotal or not generalisable.
Each school setting and school community is unique, accounting for huge variability in incidence rates (Smith, Reference Smith2014). Each has its own culture and context, set within and reflecting the mores and values of the surrounding community (Government of South Australia, 2019; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 1994): one where gendered, academic, social, racial and sporting cultures intersect. Based on how well each individual fits within the dominant hegemonies of the context or setting, they are either accepted or rejected by their peers. Popularity, acceptance, rejection, ostracism and adhering and conforming to norms all serve as social vehicles driving the peer group dynamic (Slee et al., Reference Slee, Campbell and Spears2012). C/B is enabled through these acceptance and rejection mechanisms as individuals strive to fit in and develop their identity and relationships and sense of wellbeing within the peer context.
How adults and professionals in schools view and engage with CYP as they navigate these constant social and emotional demands is critical. The rights ensconced in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Articles 12 (respect for children’s views: to give opinions freely on issues that affect them; to have adults listen and be taken seriously) and 13 (sharing thoughts freely: the right to share freely what they learn, think and feel, by talking, drawing, writing without harming others) are contextualised by the most recent views of childhood noted earlier: CYP now have: agency (the postmodern child); competency (the competent child); and experience of the digital settings in which they now conduct their relationships (the wireless/digital child). This view thus sets the way forward for how adults can work respectfully with CYP in their changing schooling, social and online contexts, and how participation and power relationships between adults and CYP might be considered and reflected, especially if CYP are acknowledged to be the experts in their own lived experiences of C/B.
Models of Participation
Alongside these changing world views of CYP and the emergence of the rights of children to be heard rests the notion of participation. Schools initially positioned children and young people solely as learners in adult-controlled, authoritarian-directed school settings, as passive recipients of adult-determined knowledge. Participation was adult directed: largely decorative, manipulated and tokenistic. Over time, there were shifts from the authoritarian pedagogies of the early 1900s to more socially democratic, liberal and neo-liberal orientations, paving the way for CYP to have greater participation and involvement in their education and emerging citizenry, which is one of the goals of an educated society.
Hart’s well-known ‘ladder of participation’ first emerged in his citizenship work for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF; Hart, Reference Hart1992). Participation referred to the process of ‘sharing decisions which affect one’s life and the life of the community in which one lives’, further adding that ‘participation is the fundamental right of citizenship’ (Hart, 1995, p. 5). Eight ‘levels or rungs’ of participation that could support a child or young person’s trajectory towards citizenship were presented: manipulation; decoration; tokenism; assigned but informed; consulted and informed; adult-initiated, shared decisions with children; child initiated and directed; child initiated, shared decisions with adults. The first three were identified as nonparticipatory, and the others suggest incremental shifts in power, away from the adult progressively towards the young person.
Fletcher, founder of SoundOut!, an organisation devoted to promoting student voice and engagement in schools, adapted Hart’s ladder in 2003 to reflect the practical structure of contemporary schools, called the Ladder of Meaningful Student Engagement (https://soundout.org/2015/02/02/ladder-of-student-involvement/). The bottom three rungs remain nonparticipatory, where adults retain control: student manipulation, decoration and tokenism. The middle rungs — student centred, informed and consulted — represent where adults still have some control, but students have progressively greater input with each step. The uppermost rungs reflect where students become increasingly equitable with adults, in trusting, respectful, empowered partnerships and relationships: student-adult equality, completely student driven and student-adult equity. What is important is that these are not strictly hierarchical representations, but rather there are incremental changes in how adults and CYP participate together.
Finally, Lundy’s (Reference Lundy2007) model called for greater accountability to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): the right to express views and for them to be given due weight. It considers the following four elements (p. 933):
Space: Children must be provided with safe and inclusive opportunities to form and express their views
Voice: Children must be facilitated to express their view
Audience: The view must be listened to
Influence: The view must be acted upon, as appropriate.
Lundy’s (Reference Lundy2007) model also takes account of other relevant UNCRC provisions, including Article 2 (nondiscrimination), Article 3 (best interest), Article 5 (right to guidance), Article 13 (right to seek, receive, and impart information) and Article 19 (protection from abuse), situating participation in a wider human rights’ context. Taken together, these elements provide a practical approach or strategy or process for engaging CYP in areas that matter to them: such as preventing C/B. Creating a safe, inclusive space, where student views can be elicited, listened to and then acted upon supports Articles 12 and 13, but it also acknowledges that while adults may still control the process — for example, through Article 5: the right to guidance — that as children mature this control diminishes, and is counterbalanced by the need to listen and to give weight to their views, a role particularly well suited to school counsellors. Finally, Lundy asserts that ‘student involvement and engagement in decision-making, is a permanent, non-negotiable human right’ (p. 940). Taking this approach or model into consideration, student views, their voice and contributions, and rights to equitable participation can no longer be trivialised as simply being anecdotal or subjective ‘add-ons’ to larger quantitative studies; rather, they should be central. Participatory design approaches fit well with this view.
Participatory Design Approaches
Participatory design (PD) emerged in conjunction with the rise of information and communication technologies and is defined by Simonsen and Robertson (Reference Simonsen and Robertson2012, p. 2) as:
A process of investigating, understanding, reflecting upon, establishing, developing and supporting mutual learning between multiple participants in ‘collective reflection-in-action’, … where the designers strive to learn the realities of the users’ situation while the users strive to articulate their desired aims …
Drawing on practices arising from technology and product design, Human-Centred Design (HCD), User-Centred Design (UCD), and Participatory Design (PD) all place the end-user at the centre of the problem-solving process, but the approach differs slightly with each. In PD, knowledge is generated through a process of mutual learning, driven and led by the user and their experiences (Schuler & Namioka, Reference Schuler and Namioka1993). According to Hagen et al. (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012, p. 5), PD refers to ‘a suite of practices which relate specifically to understanding and prioritizing the core needs, and contexts of those who are experiencing a problem and needing a solution’. Schuler and Namioka (Reference Schuler and Namioka1993, p. xi) also note that in PD, ‘the people destined to use the system play a critical role in designing it’.
PD is therefore a creative, collaborative approach to problem solving that starts with people and their experiences and ends with solutions tailored to their needs. According to Greenbaum and Kyng (Reference Greenbaum and Kyng1991), PD methods are generative, experiential and action-based, and put emphasis on play, cooperative learning, and creating visions of the future and design. Such methods align well with current learner-centred pedagogies that promote active, experiential, inquiry-based learning approaches (Gomez et al., Reference Gomez, Kyza, Mancevice, Fischer, Hmelo-Silver, Goldman and Reimann2018).
PD approaches also resonate well with Lundy’s (Reference Lundy2007) model of participation, where space, voice, audience and influence are afforded through the PD processes of: establishing trust, providing safe and inclusive opportunities, facilitation, listening to and clarifying messages, and taking action.
In schools, students are the end-users of all bullying prevention and intervention policies and approaches put into place, yet they are infrequently the creators of or significant contributors to them. Tokenistic consultations are common but do not create student ownership and buy-in. By engaging students in formulating and creating solutions, and in (co-)designing approaches to deal with C/B, the usual top-down, adult-driven process is upended, and a bottom-up, context-specific, participatory approach enabling relevant, meaningful tailored solutions to meet their unique needs can emerge.
This approach gives due weight to CYP’s voice and acknowledges the guidance of adults (Lundy, Reference Lundy2007), yet facilitates the higher levels of participation indicated by Hart (Reference Hart1992) and Fletcher (2003). PD helps ensure that interventions are engaging the people they are intending to support. Through a process premised on creating a shared language and mutual trust, together with visual and playful methods that engage, motivate and empower youth, a clear sense of ownership and partnership emerges whereby adults can relinquish power and status as knowledge-holders, supporting CYP to emerge as knowledge-brokers (Spears & Kofoed, Reference Spears, Kofoed, Smith and Steffgen2013), working in increasing equity with adults as co-designers and co-researchers. Methods and design artefacts, such as personas (fictional characters) and scenarios, facilitate exploration of sensitive and difficult issues at arm’s length; that is, how would X or Y react or respond or experience this?
Two exemplars of end-user engagement in PD approaches to develop prevention and intervention strategies are now briefly outlined. Together they provide a model or strategy for both youth- and teacher-centred PD to inform the development of context-relevant prevention and intervention approaches. Readers are encouraged to view the full reports and publications for full details of each study.
Participatory Design Case Studies
Promoting Online Safety and Wellbeing: Reframing Core Content and Messages
The ‘Safe and Well Online’ key project at the Young and Well Co-operative Research Centre (2011–2016) adopted Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) PD approach to develop and test a program of four online, youth-centred, social marketing-styled campaigns. Independently and combined, they aimed to promote aspects of young people’s online safety and support their mental health and wellbeing (Spears, Taddeo, Collin et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Collin, Swist, Razzell, Borbone and Drennan2016). The four programs were Keep It Tame! (Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Scrimgeour et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Scrimgeour, Collin, Drennan and Razzell2015), Appreciate a Mate (Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Drennan, Scrimgeour and Razzell2015), Something Haunting You? (Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Swist et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Webb-Williams, Brock, Kavanagh, Drennan, Razzell and Borbone2016), and Goalzie! (Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Webb-Williams, Brock, Kavanagh, Drennan, Razzell and Borbone2016). Grounded in Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum model (Bruner, 1961), the four sequential campaigns revisited prior concepts and messaging, promoting being safe and well online. Change models employed to assess outcomes included nudge theory (Thaler & Sunstein, Reference Thaler and Sunstein2008) and the model of goal-directed behavior (Perugini & Bagozzi, Reference Perugini and Bagozzi2001).
Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) PD process is guided by four operational components: (1) Identify the problem; (2) Define why it occurs and who it affects, including the magnitude of the problem; (3) Design the intervention, planning and evaluation framework (What works and for whom?); and (4) Evaluate the impact, process and outcomes.
This iterative sequence and process of refinement and clarification used artefacts and fun activities to constantly review the core needs and contexts of end-users: those young people for whom the campaigns and outputs were eventually intended. End-users and researchers and designers shared and brokered meaning, challenging languages and understanding through feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms. Artefacts — the material inputs and outputs of the shared research and design process — comprise tangible products and tools such as sketches, story boards and mock-ups, which represent the thought processes, intended design and steps along the way.
Key stakeholders (e.g., partners and researchers) determined that the first ‘problem’ to address through the campaign was C/B. However, through student-centred, participatory activities and workshops, where CYP identified and defined the problem, a different, youth-centred conceptual understanding of C/B was presented that completely altered the direction of the proposed focus for the first campaign. Cb was deemed an adult-invented term that held little real connection or value for them. Instead Cb was considered more broadly as behaviours concerned with disrespect for self and others, effectively repositioning the proposed campaign messaging to more accurately represent what they would like to see achieved: a change in negative online behaviours brought about through the promotion of respect for self and others on and offline. An online banner-ad campaign, Keep It Tame!, targeting disrespectful behaviours, rather than the device or technology per se, was subsequently developed in collaborative workshops with young people and creative designers and campaign professionals. Student input was central and present throughout, at each stage from conception to delivery. Respectfully, CYP were deemed to have lived experience, knowledge and expertise, shifting the power relationship away from adults (knowledge-holders), towards CYP, the knowledge-brokers, creating a greater sense of equity in the process.
More importantly, CYP could see how their input was being utilised to develop the campaign scenarios, the language used, the script itself, the visuals and the messaging. ‘It was more than just answering a survey… we were involved from the very beginning. I can see how my ideas shaped the final outcome which feels really good’ (Alex, 16, Safe and Well Online Project).
Similar processes were used for the remaining three campaigns. Body image was reframed by CYP for the second campaign as sending affirming, positive messages to support feeling good about yourself (Appreciate a Mate!). Getting youth, especially boys and young men, to reach out to others for help for everyday problems was the issue reframed by CYP for the third campaign. It went from a negative focus on the stigma associated with seeking help, to acknowledging the achievements, benefits and outcomes derived from tackling everyday common issues such as exam stress (Something Haunting You?). The final campaign problem redesigned was help-seeking for wellbeing, so that young people would know how and where to seek help for bigger issues, such as mental health, an area in which school counsellors can offer specialised confidential support. Youth reframed this issue to be concerned with practising goal setting: an important first step in help-seeking behavior, so it would become a norm — part of their common, rehearsed (and fun) experience-base to call upon (Goalzie!).
Implications for practitioners
Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) model of PD (identify, define, design, evaluate) enabled CYP to engage in activities that are focused on them, their contexts and experiences; and to inform the co-construction of meaning in the co-design of prevention and intervention initiatives. In identifying and defining the problem, they take active control, acting as knowledge-brokers of their lived experiences, co-constructing shared meaning with researchers and designers, with the outcome having the potential to resonate more closely with and impact on the target audience: other children and youth. The significance of this PD work rests with the student-centred, end-user approach, and acknowledging that CYP are agentic, competent and knowledgeable of their own digital and social experiences. Through this process, adults relinquish some power and control over the process, engaging in reflexivity and reflective practice, guiding rather than directing or controlling, subsequently elevating CYP to the roles of research and creative partners, as distinct from simply a participant who is mined for information.
These four participatory designed campaigns contributed to a broader universal community approach to prevention to reduce risk and build resilience to be safe and well online by employing youth-informed, key messaging to address known behaviours. During the course of the project, the Keep It Tame and Something Haunting You? campaign videos were viewed over 1.76 million times; 85,500 positive messages were created and sent through Appreciate A Mate, and over 1000 challenges and goals were set with Goalzie! over a short testing period of a couple of weeks (Spears et al., 2016c).
PD enabled the campaign messaging to be end-user led, focused and developed, and therefore relevant to their peers and contexts. Lundy’s (Reference Lundy2007) model of participation resonates: the student involvement and engagement in the decision making throughout, as end-users whose contribution and knowledge were central, demonstrated that adults understood and respected their non-negotiable human rights to have a voice, but more importantly, for us to give it weight.
An extensive cross-sectional cohort study operated alongside the PD campaign development to enable comparison across campaigns, with some innovative data-tracking measures to determine reach and impact. Readers are encouraged to review the study’s reports for further information.
Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) model can also be used successfully with teachers and professionals to give validity to their knowledge and experience, as evidenced by the second exemplar.
Early Childhood Educators: Co-designing a Targeted Approach to Bullying Prevention
Ey et al. (Reference Ey, Taddeo and Spears2015) noted how little was known at that time about young children and their understanding of Cb. Monks and O’Toole (Reference Monks, O’Toole, Smith and O’Higgins Norman2021) most recently reported that there is still less known about peer victimisation during the early years than with older students, further adding that therefore ‘the evidence-base for prevention and intervention programs ís not as well developed’ (p. 3).
A proof-of-concept study (Ey & Spears, Reference Ey and Spears2017, Reference Ey, Spears, Slee, Skrzypiec and Cefai2018, Reference Ey and Spears2020) to explore young children’s knowledge and understanding of bullying, and ways of supporting early childhood educators (ECEs) to address bullying in their junior primary classes, was conducted in Adelaide, South Australia. PD workshops using Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) model and process were employed with 12 ECEs to respond to their own children’s interview data, and to then co-design and implement age-relevant, contextualised, tailored 10-week bullying education programs for their classes. This approach aligned with developing a targeted classroom and age-specific strategy within a whole-of school, multitiered approach.
Using a previously published method utilising a set of cartoon scenarios (stick figures) (Monks & Smith, Reference Monks and Smith2006), 4- to 8-year-olds were interviewed and asked to identify which of the scenarios or behaviours represented either bullying; aggression/conflict/not bullying; or play. A high level of confusion was evident; young children named almost every form of aggressive behaviour as bullying, reflecting previous studies with this age group; some were unable to differentiate rough and tumble play or accidental harm from bullying; and very few could identify the key elements of bullying that differentiated it from other forms of aggression (Ey & Spears, Reference Ey and Spears2017, Reference Ey, Spears, Slee, Skrzypiec and Cefai2018, Reference Ey and Spears2020).
Using these data, ECEs identified and defined the nature and magnitude of the problem in their classroom and school context, and through the lens of their own children’s understanding of bullying.
Small group interviews, discussions and a modified Q-Sort technique were used to facilitate teachers to respond, identifying what the issue was specifically for their context; defining the magnitude of the problem; why it occurs and then designing a unique tailored prevention-intervention program, which was evaluated using a pre-post, test-retest design.
Q sort methodology (Brown, Reference Brown1996) formed the core of the co-design components of the PD workshop following the presentation of the children’s data by the researchers. Traditionally, a set of topic cards would be created to determine an individual’s subjective viewpoint about something: their feelings, perspectives or preferences. Participants would then rank the cards on a preprepared grid or template, approximating a normal distribution, and data are then usually subjected to a factor analysis (Newman & Ramio, Reference Newman, Ramio, Tashakkori and Teddlie2010).
For this study, however, the topic cards were only employed as an artefact generated during the PD process to facilitate the development and sequencing of the ECEs’ data-informed and context-driven program.
A set of topic cards was developed by the researchers from the extant C/B prevention and intervention evidence base, and blank cards were included for any additional topics considered relevant by the ECEs. Three main topic areas were:
Broad topic areas for consideration of inclusion in a program: defining bullying and nonbullying behaviours; reporting versus dobbing; building resilience; diversity and inclusion; understanding friendship; understanding conflict as a normal part of relationships; team building.
Specific strategies for coping with bullying: shared concern strategies; help seeking; managing conflict.
Tailored topics for those engaging in bullying behaviours or being victimised: using empathy; bystander and defender behaviours; self-regulation and emotion management.
Teachers selected only those topics relevant to their contexts and children’s data, arranging them in order of sequence for their 10-week program. This was an iterative process, requiring much deliberation and discussion in response to the identify and define components of the model (Hagen et al., Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012). For example, some decided to commence with work on relationships or friendships, while others commenced with defining bullying or conflict (Ey & Spears, Reference Ey and Spears2020). Once the sequence and content were determined, ECEs then brainstormed possible pedagogical approaches, searched online for existing or modifiable resources suitable for early years classrooms, and created lesson plans. These were then aligned to the Australian Curriculum, the Personal and Social Capabilities and the Early Years Learning Framework (ELYF) with the assistance of the researchers (see Ey & Spears Reference Ey and Spears2020 for a detailed explanation). The shift in power from the researchers to the teachers was evident as soon as the ECEs became acquainted with the data from their own classrooms and children. They took control of the analysis process of identifying and defining the problem, referring only to the researchers for clarification of their understanding. This was a user-centric process that positioned the ECEs as informed research partners, co-creating and designing a targeted, specific, tailored and contextual program.
Postprogram evaluations conducted after the delivery of the uniquely tailored programs indicated a significant change in young students’ knowledge and understanding of bullying (Ey & Spears, Reference Ey and Spears2017, Reference Ey, Spears, Slee, Skrzypiec and Cefai2018, Reference Ey and Spears2020). ECEs reported that the PD process for them was enjoyable, energising and engaging, as well as highly informative. They further expressed they would use their newly acquired PD skills to modify and contextualise their current program for implementing with future classes.
Implications for practitioners
The PD process in this exemplar enabled ECEs to work directly with their own classes’ data to tailor strategies or approaches specific to their needs: through identifying the issues and concerns; defining the magnitude of the problem, and then co-designing their unique program or intervention.
This iterative approach, including aligning with the Australian Curriculum and Early Years Framework, and exploring and tailoring already existing materials, can be undertaken once classroom data is available, as a whole-day teacher professional learning session or segmented into smaller staff level planning meetings; for example, Identify and Define the Problem (Session 1) + Design and Evaluate (Session 2). The skill set developed through this PD model is transferable to any problem that requires a creative, proactive, end-user driven solution.
Capacity building of staff to address C/B is a key aspect of this process, and one that the literature calls for (Lester et al., Reference Lester, Waters, Pearce, Spears and Falconer2018) so that schools can tailor the needs of their own communities through providing context-driven solutions to their unique settings. Universal approaches to reducing CB are beneficial and do contribute to reductions in prevalence, but early childhood sectors are often not considered. This PD approach empowers educators (and others) to become practitioner-researchers in their own contexts, and to enhance the positive outcomes for their students, contextualised to their unique setting, as part of a whole of community response.
Limitations
One of the immediately obvious limitations of employing PD is that, unlike quantitative research designs, which aim to measure variables and determine the success and effect of the process on outcomes, PD is not concerned with measurement. Rather, its focus is on grounding change through empowering end-users to lead that change process: those who will make use of the outputs and outcomes. The first exemplar utilised a cross-sectional cohort study in conjunction with the PD component to provide some of these measures (see Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Drennan, Scrimgeour and Razzell2015; Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Webb-Williams, Brock, Kavanagh, Drennan, Razzell and Borbone2016; Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Scrimgeour et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Scrimgeour, Collin, Drennan and Razzell2015; Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Swist et al., Reference Spears, Taddeo, Barnes, Collin, Swist, Webb-Williams, Brock, Kavanagh, Drennan, Razzell and Borbone2016). Spinuzzi (Reference Spinuzzi2005) also suggests that methodological and method limitations of PD rest with the skills of the researcher: to relinquish researcher power over participants, and adopt a more participatory method requires an iterative, flexible approach, where meaning is ‘shared, co-interpreted, co-analyzed and co-designed’ (p. 168). Practically, PD takes time and skill to build relationships and establish trust, to engage participants differently to support them to shift from being directed (by the researcher or school counsellor) to operating independently as a co-researcher, in partnership.
Discussion and Conclusions: Informing Practice
Purdy and Spears (Reference Purdy and Spears2020) noted the shift towards increased use of co-participatory research approaches with children and young people in recent years, where knowledge with adults is co-constructed through employing end-user experiences that support CYP in becoming co-creators and co-designers, co-researchers and change partners (Spears & Kofoed, Reference Spears, Kofoed, Smith and Steffgen2013). Understanding PD as a methodology, as demonstrated here using Hagen et al.’s (Reference Hagen, Collin, Metcalf, Nicholas, Rahilly and Swainston2012) model, ensures that knowledge is generated through a process of mutual learning, driven and led by the user and their experiences (Schuler & Namioka, Reference Schuler and Namioka1993). The first exemplar also acknowledges Lundy’s (Reference Lundy2007) view that student involvement and engagement in decision-making, ‘is a permanent, non-negotiable human right’ (p. 940). Extending the PD model to educators in the second exemplar demonstrates its strength as a flexible process that empowers and engages, and builds capacity and transferable skill sets, leading to unique and tailored, contextual outcomes. In both instances, the school counsellor is in a strong position to facilitate such approaches, by introducing them to the school and working initially with the school executive team to ensure that the processes are well understood and supported.
But there are challenges: being open to relinquishing power to children and young people requires a view of childhood in which CYP are agentic, competent and knowledgeable of their own digital and social experiences. Being flexible is another challenge, particularly in contexts that are hybridised, such as before and during COVID-19. PD can be unpredictable and take a lot of time, and require resources and navigational skills to operate in and around changing school architectures. What is evident, however, is that the process is equally as important as the outputs or outcomes. It is the process that facilitates CYP to reach the upper levels of Hart’s (Reference Hart1992) and Fletcher’s (2003) ladders of participation of meaningful engagement to create CB prevention and intervention approaches or programs that reflect the importance of context and student-centred relevancy to inform practice.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2021.20
