Disablist Bullying in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland:
An investigation of student teachers’
knowledge, experience, and confidence.
Dr Noel Purdy1 and Dr Conor Mc Guckin2
1
Stranmillis University College, Belfast, Northern Ireland
2
School of Education, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
This research study was conducted at Stranmillis University College, Belfast
and Trinity College, Dubllin.
Corresponding Author:
Dr Noel Purdy, Stranmillis University College, Belfast, BT9 5DY.
Telephone: 00 (44) 2890384305, Fax: 00 (44) 2890664423,
E-mail: n.purdy@stran.ac.uk
Disablist Bullying in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: An
investigation of student teachers’ knowledge, experience, and confidence.
Abstract
This study explored the knowledge, experience, and confidence of student teachers from
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in relation to disablist bullying. Adopting a
mixed methodological approach of four focus groups (N = 18) and a pencil-and-paper
questionnaire (N = 257), the study explored the students’ knowledge, experience, and
confidence in relation to disablist bullying. Results highlight that none of the participants, in
either jurisdiction, had received guidance in relation to disablist bullying as part of their
Initial Teacher Education (ITE). Results highlight the need for practical, solution-focused,
and evidence-based input at the level of ITE and Continuing Professional Development in
both jurisdictions.
Key words: bullying, disability, special educational needs, teachers, Initial Teacher
Education
Disablist Bullying in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: An investigation of
student teachers’ knowledge, experience, and confidence.
Introduction: Research exploring bully/victim problems
Research exploring bully/victim problems has become an issue of growing international
concern in recent years. While reports of bullying are not a new phenomenon (e.g. Hughes
1857), we are now at a stage where we have a substantive cross-national knowledge
regarding the nature, incidence, correlates, and management of traditional ‘face-to-face’
bully/victim problems among school pupils (McGuckin, Cummins, and Lewis 2010a; Smith
et al. 1999). We are also fortunate to have a robust knowledge base regarding successful
intervention and prevention programmes in the area (Farrington and Ttofi 2009; Smith,
Pepler, and Rigby 2004).
Recently, much attention has been directed towards the emerging issue of cyberbullying in
particular, with researchers and policy makers collaborating on a variety of cross-national
projects exploring fundamental issues, such as definition, measurement, coping strategies,
intervention, prevention, and legal issues. With this important new work, it is also incumbent
upon researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to not lose focus on the further
development of knowledge regarding other important aspects of the bullying phenomenon.
For example, while attention does continues to focus on, for example, homophobic bullying
(e.g. Rivers 2011), sexist, sexual, and transphobic bullying (e.g. Department for Education
and Skills 2010), and the emerging area of alterophobia (Minton 2012), relatively little
attention is paid to ‘disablist’ bullying – where those with a disability/Special Educational
Needs (SEN) are directly involved in bully/victim problems.
Disablist Bullying
While many international studies have explored the nature, incidence, and correlates of
disablist bullying – either in a general manner (e.g. Fernández 2009) or related to specific
categories of SEN / disability (e.g. Humphrey and Symes 2010a,b; Unnever and Cornell
2003) this has occurred on a sporadic and less than systematic manner, like much research in
the area of bully/victim problems (McGuckin et al. 2010b). Despite this, a common finding
in international research is that there are higher incidence rates among children with SEN
than among those without (e.g. U.S.: Carter and Spencer 2006; England: Norwich and Kelly
2004). In attempting to understand the role of education in ameliorating the effects of
bully/victim problems involving children with SEN / disabilities, little attention has been
focused on the role of teachers and none at all to date on the preparation of student teachers.
There are few existing definitions of disablist bullying and no evidence of any international
consensus on the precise detail of what it might mean. In guidance issued under the last UK
Labour government, reference was made to “bullying involving children and young people
with SEN and disabilities” (DCSF 2008, p.7). The Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum
(2010) has however defined disablist bullying much more broadly as “… hurtful, insulting or
intimidating behaviour related to a perceived or actual disability”. Possible manifestations of
disablist bullying include: the regular use, consciously or unconsciously, of offensive and
discriminatory language; verbal abuse and threats; public ridicule; jokes about disability;
exclusion from social groups; refusal to cooperate with someone because of their impairment;
or refusing to meet a disabled person’s access needs (Bristol City Council 2006, 18).
There are at least two reasons identified in the research literature as to why children with
SEN / disabilities may be at higher risk for involvement in such problems: they may be less
socially competent (Whitney et al. 1992) and may have fewer friendships – a significant
buffer from being victimized (Martlew and Hodson 1991). These are both areas where the
influence of educators can have a positive effect. In her extensive review of the literature,
Frederickson (2010) reported that some studies (e.g. Newberry and Parish 1987) have shown
that peer acceptance can be greater for more clearly apparent needs and disabilities (e.g.
severe learning difficulties or hearing impairment) but not for less obvious specific learning
difficulties (e.g. dyslexia) or low achieving pupils. As Frederickson (2010, 9) notes, “... in
these cases there is nothing to signal to classmates that these pupils are deserving of special
consideration”. Frederickson (2010) cites Morton and Campbell (2008) who found that it
was the class teacher who was the most persuasive source (rather than other professionals or
parents) in presenting explanatory information to peers about a classmate with autism.
Importantly, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland adhere to the international
consensus regarding educational ‘inclusion’ (e.g. UNESCO 1994; United Nations 2006). In
addition to support for such international agreements, both jurisdictions also seek to adhere to
Article 19 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989),
which decrees that every child should be protected from physical or psychological hurt or
mistreatment.
Within this policy context, guidance to teachers in dealing with disablist bullying remains
relatively scarce. In the United Kingdom, the DCSF (2008) Safe to Learn materials,
published under the last Labour government and no longer official government policy,
included one publication which addressed Bullying Involving Children with Special
Educational Needs and Disabilities. This comprehensive document considered legal duties
for schools in relation to pupils with SEN. It also outlined preventative strategies such as the
development of a school policy, listening to the voice of pupils with SEN, and using the
curriculum to tackle disablist bullying, and also response strategies such as the use of
appropriate sanctions and peer mentoring. On a regional level, the guidance offered by
Bristol City Council (2006) goes further and, in addition to the topics covered by DCSF
(2008), offers guidance on supporting victims and monitoring and recording incidents. In
contrast, Ireland offers no specific guidance (North or South) to schools on disablist bullying,
with the exception of the recently published (and very brief) pamphlet on the subject by the
Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum (NIABF 2010).
Given the absence of any comparable study, and the pivotal role that teachers play in
combating such issues, this research studyi set out to investigate student teachers’ knowledge,
experience and confidence in dealing with disablist bullying in Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland. The project also aimed to identify priorities for Initial Teacher
Education (ITE) in both jurisdictions in moving towards improving the preparation of
teachers to address effectively the issue of disablist bullying in schools.
Methodology
In rejecting a purely positivist research paradigm and its assumption of objective reality, it
was acknowledged at the outset that there was a need for a more naturalistic or interpretivist
approach.
Within such a paradigm there is an awareness that behaviour can only be
understood through the researcher’s conceptual lens, and that the experience thus described is
a co-creation of the research participants and the researchers (Beck 1979).
Thus the influence of researchers who were, in some cases, known to the students, both male,
and both working in Initial Teacher Education has to be noted at the outset. In addition, the
particular social contexts of the respective institutions in this cross-border study must also be
examined critically (in terms of differences in national or institutional policy and practice),
since, for instance, one of institutions in the study (the Republic of Ireland site) has an
international reputation for research in the area of anti-bullying, in contrast to the emerging
profile of its Northern counterpart. Some of the students in the Republic of Ireland sample
were also on a shorter one-year post-graduate course where there was less time for
substantive content to be available, in contrast to the Northern Ireland sample who were in
the final year of a four-year B.Ed. degree programme. Furthermore the method of sampling
for the focus groups (an email request for students to volunteer) could not be seen as
representative.
In adopting a mixed methodological approach, the research aimed to avoid simplistic
polarities between quantitative and qualitative methods, and instead to seek a less
confrontational approach (Denzin 2008, 322) and greater convergence between the two
(Brannen 2005). Denzin (2008) and Creswell (2009) have both advocated an approach which
recognises the advantages of integrating different methodological approaches and forms of
data in answering research questions.
The result is a more complete picture of the
phenomenon under investigation and helps overcome the weaknesses of any one individual
research method (Denscombe 2008).
A staged process began with qualitative analysis of focus group discussions, followed by
questionnaires providing a descriptive overview of experience and confidence, which served
to supplement the qualitative data.
Two centres for ITE, one in each jurisdiction, were selected for recruitment of participants.
In both cases, all final year teacher education students or those on one year courses were
invited to participate. Final year students were chosen in the belief that they would best be
able to reflect back on the content of their ITE courses (whether one year or four years) and
would be most likely to have come across incidents of disablist bullying while on teaching
practice.
Following pilot studies in both locations, 18 student teachers participated in the focus groups
(2 per centre). Eleven (61%) of the participants were studying to become primary school
teachers while the remaining seven (39%) were studying to become post-primary teachers
(see Table 1 below). Females were overrepresented within the sample (88%), reflecting
course enrolment at both centres.
Clusters of questions were developed for the focus groups in terms of knowledge of policy,
legislation, and official publications in relation to disablist bullying, as well as students’
experience and confidence. The semi-structured approach concluded with participants being
asked to suggest alterations to current ITE provision. Questionnaire items were similarly
organised by theme as per the focus groups. Response option formats included multiple
choice, forced choice, and Likert scales
As Table 1 illustrates, a total of 257 questionnaires were completed and returned for analysis
with an overall response rate of 56%. The overwhelming majority of respondents (90%; n =
231) were studying to become primary school teachers, with most (81%, n = 188) coming
from the Republic of Ireland. Only 11% (n = 28) were preparing to teach at post-primary
level.
Table 1: Participants by jurisdiction and ITE phase
Focus Groups
Questionnaires
Primary Post-Primary Total Primary Post-Primary Total
Northern Ireland
6
4
10
43
22
65 (25%)
Republic of Ireland
5
3
8
188
4
192 (75%)
Total
11
7
18
231
26
257 (100%)
Guided by the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (2011),
ethical approval for the research was granted by the Ethics Committees of both participating
institutions.
Ethical consideration was also given by the researchers in relation to the
potentially sensitive nature of the topic under investigation, particularly in the focus group
interviews, which, as Lee (1999) and Brannen (1988) note, provide opportunities for in-depth
discussion of such issues, but which can also potentially cause distress among participants
(Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2011). The authors were conscious that participants could
themselves have been affected by bullying, and indeed one of the participants did speak
movingly about the experiences of her sibling who had been targeted by playground bullying
behaviour.
As Brannen (1988) suggests, the approach taken by the researchers in this
instance was deliberately supportive and non-interventive.
Results
The results of the focus groups and questionnaires are presented below.
Focus Groups
In the focus groups, the students recounted that children with SEN were at times deliberately
excluded by their non-SEN peers.
One student explained how a child with Down’s
Syndrome was frequently left out of activities and spent lunchtime walking around the
playground with her Special Needs Assistant. Another male pupil with ADHD was not
usually included in lunchtime games of football and when he was, there were negative
consequences:
“They wouldn’t pass him the ball, because he seemed to, didn’t know what to do
when he got it”. (RoI, primary)
Another primary student reported that a child with autism was not chosen as a partner to pick
wildflowers on an outing because her non-SEN peers felt that, due to her very poor
coordination, she would not be able to pick as many wild flowers as the others. One student
explained that the relationship was more complex: the peers were happy to provide practical
help for the child with SEN (pack her bag, note down her homework) but they did not want to
be friends on equal terms (“they didn’t want her that kind of way”).
None of the students reported any physical abuse directed at pupils with SEN, but there was
one reported case of verbal bullying. One student told the story of a (post-primary) girl
injured in a firework accident, where the other girls in the class simply “didn’t know how to
deal with her” resulting in “snide comments” and being “picked on” by her peers, especially
in the Physical Education (PE) changing rooms.
Participants in both jurisdictions also told of how the attitude of the teacher could have a
significant positive impact on the inclusion of a child with SEN and thus on the prevention of
bullying. For example, one primary student reported that her own brother’s experience (with
ADHD) in a mainstream class improved significantly when the teacher stopped running class
competitions for behaviour where no one ever wanted her brother in their group because of
his outbursts, and where the teacher began to insist that on the football pitch you must pass to
everyone before a pupil is allowed to score. Furthermore, in the case reported earlier of the
young girl with autism left out by her peers as the class picked wild flowers, the student
teacher began to ask the pupils to form groups of three rather than two, and regularly changed
the groupings to encourage greater acceptance and less opportunity for bullying.
In some more complex cases students reported that the perpetrator of the bullying in
mainstream schools was, themselves, a child with SEN. In some cases, this bullying could be
targeted towards other children with SEN, in other cases towards children without any SEN.
The students found such cases particularly challenging to deal with, as one student teacher
explained in relation to one eleven-year-old boy with spina bifida who was “very snide with
people” and who “was able ... to really, really get at people”. The same student confessed
that he found this extremely difficult to deal with:
“I would take the most classes for P.E. and [he] would play up you know if we were
playing football ah [he] would just, ah, kick somebody’s leg, just trip them because
they were running past him and somebody would fall, ah, how do I, how do I deal
with that? To the other ones I’d give them a wee fundamental movement skills
exercise to do, can’t give it to [him], he’s physically disabled. I found it very, very
difficult to find any way of sort of reprimanding him, so yes, by necessity the bullying
was almost tolerated.” (NI primary)
For those students in Northern Ireland who had not chosen the Pastoral Care optional module,
there was even less certainty about how to respond. For instance, one such student explained
that he had never touched on the causes or impact of bullying and admitted that his reaction
to a bullying incident would be to deal with it purely instinctively:
“You deal with it naturally. And that has the potential to be an ineffective reaction. I
mean I don’t know, or, I don’t know why or what causes bullying; I don’t know what
the outcomes for people that are bullied are. I mean formally I’ve never, I’ve never
even touched on it ...” (NI, primary)
Questionnaires
The overwhelming majority of respondents to the questionnaire felt that it is important for
student teachers to be trained to meet the needs of pupils with SEN (99%, n = 255: ‘Agree’ or
‘Strongly Agree’). Similarly, nearly all the respondents to the questionnaire (98%, n = 253)
endorsed the view that the existence of bully/victim problems in schools is an important
issue, while unanimously, all respondents ‘agreed’ (23%, n = 59) or ‘strongly agreed’ (77%,
n = 200) that it is important for teachers to be trained to deal with bully/victim problems.
Nearly two-thirds of questionnaire respondents (65%, n = 167) reported that they felt
confident in their ability to deal with general bullying incidents, should they arise in school
(28%, n = 71 were ‘unsure’). While 29.8% (n = 72) had not had to deal with any incidents of
bullying in the course of their teaching placements to date, over two-thirds (69%, n = 166)
had to deal with between 1 and 7 incidents. Four respondents (2%) reported that they had
dealt with between 8 and 12 incidents.
Not one of the students in either jurisdiction had received any course content whatsoever
during their ITE in relation to disablist bullying. Despite this universal lack of preparation,
8% (n = 19) had dealt with one incident, 4% (n = 9) had dealt with two incidents, and 1% (n
= 2) had dealt with three incidents of disablist bullying during their teaching practice
placements to date.
When asked about their confidence in dealing with an incident of disablist bullying, nearly
one-third of all respondents (31%, n = 79) reported that they did not feel confident in dealing
with such an incident, with a further 46% (n = 117) being ‘unsure’. When asked what would
guide their response to such an incident, the findings are important (see Table 2 below): a
majority (54%, n = 138) reported that they would revert to ‘school policy’, and 44% (n =
111) said that they would seek ‘advice from a more experienced teacher(s)’. Just over onethird (35%, n = 90) reported that they would rely on ‘natural instinct’, while just one-in-eight
student teachers (12%, n = 31) reported that they would rely on ‘knowledge gained from
ITE’.
Table 2. If an incident of disablist bullying occurred, what would guide your response? (Q.25)
n
%
Natural instinct.
90
35%
School Policy.
138 54%
Knowledge gained from Initial Teacher Education course(s). 31
Advice from a more experienced teacher(s).
12%
111 44%
When asked in an open-ended question to name proactive strategies to prevent disablist
bullying, students suggested an inclusive school ethos, awareness-raising among other
children about the nature of SEN (including the use of puppets with younger children), peermentoring, and work with bystanders. In terms of reactive strategies (i.e. in response to an
incident), responses focused on dealing with incidents promptly and effectively, with
appropriate sanctions to the pupil responsible and support for the victim.
The final questionnaire item asked student teachers to suggest what would help to develop
their knowledge of disablist bullying. The full results are displayed in Table 3 below, where
it can be seen that over three-quarters of questionnaire respondents (77%, n = 193) reported
that ITE programmes should include ‘more practical strategies for dealing with incidents of
disablist bullying’. Nearly half felt that it would be useful to get ‘advice from practising
classroom teachers’ (50%, n = 125), have ‘more background information about disablist
bullying’ (45%, n = 114), have ‘case studies to consider in College (40%, n = 98), or have ‘a
dedicated website on disablist bullying for students/teachers’ (37%, n = 92). Fewer felt that it
would be useful to have ‘more detail regarding the relevant legislation’ (27%, n = 68), a
‘CPD course next year’ (24%, n = 61), ‘greater focus on disablist bullying during school
placement’ (21%, n = 53), or ‘links to external agencies’ (19%, n = 47).
Table 3. What would help as we strive to develop student teachers’ knowledge of disablist bullying?
(Q.28)
n
More background information about disablist bullying.
More practical strategies for dealing with incidents of disablist bullying.
More detail regarding the relevant legislation.
Case studies to consider in College.
Advice from practising classroom teachers.
Greater focus on disablist bullying during school placement.
A dedicated website on disablist bullying for students/teachers.
CPD course next year.
Links to external agencies.
114
193
68
98
125
53
92
61
47
%
45%
77%
27%
40%
50%
21%
37%
24%
19%
Discussion
The aims of the research study were to explore the knowledge, experience and confidence of
student teachers in relation to dealing with disablist bullying, and to outline the subsequent
priorities for the future development of ITE across the island of Ireland.
First, this study has highlighted that, despite the high importance attributed to SEN and
bullying by almost all of the student teachers, none had received any input during their ITE
regarding disablist bullying (i.e. the interaction of the two areas). Despite this, there were
examples of how a positive school ethos, coupled with a successful approach to ‘inclusion’
by the classroom teacher (Morton and Campbell 2008), yielded positive interactions between
pupils with SEN and their counterparts without SEN. However, several of the students were
able to relate incidents of disablist bullying that they had experienced while on teaching
practice. While it could be argued that some of these incidents may have occurred regardless
of whether the child had a SEN or not, it is probable that the vast majority of incidents were
enacted because of, or specifically targeted at, the SEN. Moreover it is clear from the
students’ accounts that in every case the presence of SEN made the situations more complex,
sensitive and difficult to deal with.
As with SEN and bully/victim problems more generally, the question arises here as to the
preparation (or not) of students for teaching practice. While nearly one-third of respondents
reported that they did not feel confident in dealing with incidents of disablist bullying, just
one in eight said that they would rely on what they had learnt in their ITE if confronted by
disablist bullying. Just over one-third reported that they would revert to an unreasoned
‘natural instinct’.
Perhaps the most challenging example of disablist bullying that a teacher may have to
encounter is where the perpetrator, and possibly the victim too, has a SEN (Monchy et al
2004). This research provides the example of a pupil with spina bifida who relied upon their
superior intellect to engage in indirect bullying behaviours (e.g. snide comments).
Yet again, in terms of planning for future ITE provision, the respondents asserted that ITE
should contain more practical advice and practical strategies for countering disablist bullying,
and again preferably from those with direct classroom experience.
In terms of theoretical models of teacher education, this small-scale study confirms the value
of the model proposed by Fenstermacher (1978, 1986) where the goal of effective teacher
education should not be concerned with indoctrination or the mere transmission of
information, but rather should be to allow teachers to reason soundly about their teaching and
consequently to teach more skilfully. Sound reasoning in such cases is based on a foundation
of grounded premises in facts, principles and experiences. Together the reflection on such
well-grounded premises allows sound reasoning to result in effective teaching
(Fenstermacher 1978, 1986), and is the antithesis of the kind of idiosyncractic, arbitrary
responses which some of the students in this study resorted to in the absence of any other
foundational teaching content. Such a model of ITE would therefore work to avoid the kind
of reaction cited in this study where one student spoke of dealing with disablist incidents
“naturally”.
Moreover, as the student teachers seek to develop their mastery of teaching through their ITE,
there is a sense in which they are rather isolated during their school placement. Lave and
Wenger’s (1991) frequently cited theory of learning as apprenticeship and increasing
legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice has relevance to ITE as student
teachers seek to develop their competence.
As Lave and Wenger rightly acknowledge
“schools themselves as social institutions and as places of learning constitute very specific
contexts” (1991, p.40). Students in this study found that the schools themselves were highly
individual in terms of the incidence of disablist bullying, but also undoubtedly in terms of
whether more experienced qualified teaching staff were any more confident or skilful in
addressing complex issues such as this. Support for “apprentice” teachers was therefore
available only in certain school contexts.
Furthermore, this study highlights the “very
specific contexts” of different ITE courses in a range of institutions in two different
jurisdictions. For these student teachers, there is a sense in which their living and learning is
therefore “a constant process of negotiation of meaning” (Wenger, 1998, p.53), involving
continuous interaction in a dynamic and unique social context. Unfortunately, this social
context can at times be seriously lacking in knowledge, confidence and support.
In the absence of similar studies in other countries, this study has therefore uniquely
contributed to our understanding of the importance of disablist bullying as an issue which
deserves much greater attention in ITE courses. In addition it has highlighted the very real
pastoral challenges facing student teachers, many of whom are left to fend for themselves,
bereft of adequate ITE, dependent on the variable skill levels of placement teachers, and often
resorting to ad hoc, ill-conceived responses, leading to confusion and potentially damaging
actions in tackling highly complex situations. Finally, the study throws into relief the need
for agreed minimum content for ITE courses in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland in relation to disablist bullying.
There remains of course much further research which should be carried out in this developing
area. This study was focused on a relatively modest sample of 257 students in a small
number of institutions in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Given the lack of
international research in the area of disablist bullying, it would be of interest to carry out
further research across other ITE institutions in Ireland, as well as a larger comparative study
involving ITE institutions in England, Scotland and Wales where inclusion legislation has
been in place for even longer. A broader European research perspective on disablist bullying
would also be important.
References
Beck, R.N. 1979. Handbook in Social Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Brannen, J. 1988. “The study of sensitive subjects”, Sociological Review, 36, 552-563.
Brannen, J. 2005. “Mixing Methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the
research process”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (3), 173-184.
Bristol City Council Children and Young People’s Services. 2006. Reporting and dealing with
disablist incidents in Bristol Schools. Bristol: Bristol City Council.
British Educational Research Association. 2011. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.
http://www.bera.ac.uk.
Carter, B. B., and Spencer, V. G. 2006. “The fear factor: bullying and students with disabilities”.
International Journal of Special Education 21, 11–23.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2011. Research Methods in Education (7th edition). London:
Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. 2009. “Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3 (2), 95-108.
Denscombe, M. 2008. Communities of Practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods
approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (3), 270-283.
Denzin, N.K. 2008. “The new paradigm dialog and qualitative inquiry”. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 21 (4), 315-325.
Department for Children, Schools and Families. 2008. Bullying involving children with special
educational needs and disabilities. Safe to Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools. London:
DCSF.
Department for Education and Science. 1993. Anti-Bullying Guidelines.
http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10815&ecategory=33803&sectionpag
e=12251&language=EN&link=link001&page=1&doc=32086.
Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. 2010. Guidance for schools on preventing and
responding to sexist, sexual and transphobic bullying. Safe to Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work
in schools. Nottingham, UK: DfES (01136-2009DOM-EN).
Farrington, D. P., and Ttofi, M. M. 2009. “School-based programs to reduce bullying and
victimization”. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2009:6, 10.4073/csr.2009.6
Fenstermacher, G. 1978. “A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness”.
In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 6, pp. 157-185). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Fenstermacher, G. 1986. “Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects.” In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
Fernández, D. F. 2009. Discapacidad y bullying: una investigación en Centros Específicos de
Educación Especial de Córdoba capital (Disability and bullying: Research carried out in Special
Educational Schools in Cordoba). Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Córdoba.
Frederickson, N. 2010. “Bullying or befriending? Children’s responses to classmates with special
needs”. British Journal of Special Education, 37 (1): 4-12.
Grenot-Scheyer, M., Staub, D., Peck, C. A., and Schwartz, I. S. 1998. “Reciprocity and friendships:
Listening to the voices of children and youth with and without disabilities”. In Making friends: The
influences of culture and development, ed. L. H. Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S.
Schwartz, and B. H. Baltimore. MA: Paul H. Brooks.
Hughes, T. 1857. Tom Brown’s school days (1994 Edn.). London: Penguin.
Humphrey, N., and Symes, W. 2010a. “Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying
among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools”. European
Journal of Special Needs Education. 25 (1): 77-91.
Humphrey, N., and Symes, W. 2010b. “Responses to bullying and use of social support among pupils
with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in mainstream schools: A qualitative study”. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 10 (2): 82–90.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, R.M. 1999. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
Marks, S. B. 1997. “Reducing prejudice against children with disabilities in inclusive settings”.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 44 (2): 117–131.
Martlew, M. and Hodson, J. 1991. “Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in a
special school: comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes”. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 61, 355-372.
Mc Guckin, C., Cummins, P. K., and Lewis, C. A. 2010a. “f2f and cyberbullying among children in
Northern Ireland: Data from the Kids Life and Times Surveys”. Psychology, Society, and Education
2, 83-96.
Mc Guckin, C., Lewis, C. A., and Cummins, P. K. 2010b. “Experiences of school bullying,
psychological well-being and stress in Northern Ireland: Data from the 2004 Young Life and Times
Survey”. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 31 (1-2), 53-61.
Mencap. 2007. Bullying wrecks lives: the experiences of children and young people with a learning
disability. http://www.mencap.org.uk/document.asp?id=164.
Meyer, L. H., Minondo, S., Fisher, M., Larson, M. J., Dunmore, S., Black J. W., and D’Aquanni, M.
1998. F”rames of friendship: Social relationships of adolescents with diverse abilities”. In Making
friends: The influences of culture and development, ed. L. H. Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer,
I. S. Schwartz, and B. H. Baltimore. MA: Paul H. Brooks.
Minton, S. J. 2012. “Alterophobic bullying and pro-conformist aggression in a survey of upper
secondary school students in Ireland”. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4, 86-95.
Monchy, M. De, Pijl, S. J., and Zandberg, T. 2004. “Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and
bullying of pupils with behaviour problems”. European Journal of Special Educational Needs.19 (3):
317–330.
Morton, J. F., and Campbell, J. M. 2008. “Information source affects peers’ initial attitudes toward
autism”. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 29 (3):189–201.
Newberry, M. K., and Parish, T. S. 1987. “Enhancement of attitudes toward handicapped children
through social interactions”. Journal of Social Psychology. 127 (1): 59–62.
Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum. 2010. Is your child being bullied? Information for parents and
carers of children with disabilities and/or special educational needs. Belfast: NIABF.
Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum. 2011. About Bullying. http://www.niabf.org.uk.
Norwich, B. and Kelly, N. 2004. “Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and
bullying in mainstream and special schools”. British Educational Research Journal. 30, (1):43-65.
Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at School. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rigby, K. 2002. New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rigby, K., Smith, P.K. and Pepler, D. 2004. “Working to prevent school bullying: key issues”. In
Bullying in Schools: How Successful can Interventions be, ed. P.K. Smith, D. Pepler and K. Rigby, 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, I. 2011. Homophobic bullying: Research and theoretical perspectives. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., and Slee, P. (Eds.) 1999. The
nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. J., and Rigby, K. (Eds.) 2004. Bullying in schools: How successful can
interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 No. 1117 (N.I. 6).
United Nations. 2006. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York:
United Nations. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
United Nations. 1989. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United
Nations. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESCO). 1994. The Salamanca statement on
principles, policy and practice in special needs education. World Conference on Special Needs
Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, UNESCO.
Unnever, J. D. and Cornell, D. G. 2003. “Bullying, self-control, and ADHD”. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 18, 129-147.
Van der Klift, E., and Kunc, N. 2002. “Beyond benevolence”. In Creativity and collaborative
learning: The practical guide to empowering students, teachers, and families, ed. J. S. Thousand, R.
A. Villa, and A. I. Nevin. Baltimore, MA: Paul. H. Brookes.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D., and Smith, P. K. 1992. “Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special
needs”. Support for Learning, 7, 3–7.
i
This research project was funded by the Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and South
(SCoTENS www.scotens.org )