Whilst the similarities of defining bullying focused on the educational psychological definition, there was a difference in the focus of staff and students in school, with staff primarily focusing on personality and the correction of what were seen as deficits. In contrast students showed a reluctance to label in terms of the bully victim binary, focusing on emotions and how they informed behaviour. The key difference for students was the centrality of emotions in shaping responses, the feelings invoked by becoming bully or victim, recognising them, avoiding them and controlling them were a continual theme throughout their discussions of the vignettes.
The notable difference in the descriptions of staff was the lack of reference to emotions. Tackling the issue was described as both difficult and frustrating and often unsolvable, but staff rarely discussed how bullying impacted on their own emotions or how they themselves experienced bullying. The inequity of access to alternative discourses for both staff and students enhances and promotes
construction of the individual as central to their own agency and reinforces and maintains hierarchical systems within schools. This continued focus on the micro lens of the individual as opposed to the macro lens of schools and the systems and processes inherent in them is perhaps a barrier in promoting inclusive and equitable schools, where the adult voice and knowledge is prioritised over that of the student. There is a need to widen the scope for examining the structures and processes
embedded in schools by using a critical sociological examination of not only the characterisation of the child and staff, but also the repetitive, performative actions and interactions that seek to reinforce the binary of how the bully/victim is made, or indeed how the boy/girl or student/teacher is shaped.
Students were reluctant in their discussions of the vignettes to label the individuals as bullies or victims, preferring to ascribe labels to the behaviour. Describing it as mean or rude there was uncertainty when asked did they perceive it as bullying. The status and/or popularity of an individual were cited as factors by students in
ascertaining whether the behaviour was bullying, with the impact on the individual being considered as an important element of the decision as to whether or not the action or behaviour was deemed as bullying. This interpretation of power as being an unequal balance between individuals, whether through status, popularity or intention reflects the current conceptualisation of power present in definitions of bullying.
The agency of individuals was described as being constrained, with students identifying a range of risks, including reputational risk, through exclusion or exposure to ridicule if the behaviour is challenged. Personal agency is seen by students as being limited through surveillance by their peers which establishes norms of behaviour. Students recognised that those who were perceived to have positions of power were able to control individual actions and this had
consequences on an individual’s sense of identity. Emotions, both recognising and managing were seen as instrumental to responding to or challenging the individual or the behaviour. Also mentioned was the ability of individuals to recognise and manage their own emotions and how this impacted on their choice of response to viewing bullying as a bystander or being the victim.
The shaping of identity, what it means to be a boy, a girl, a student or a teacher were noticeable in that they were often stereotypical. Staff and students offered descriptions of gendered expectations of behaviours. The surveillance and
regulations embedded in schools that are culturally and historically situated, and are repeated and performed by individuals and groups were never explicitly voiced by students or staff. These missing discourses allow for a continuing view of bullying as one dimensional, between individuals. There is scant recognition of a much broader sociological view evident in either staff or student discourse. This version of bullying is taken for granted as the truth and is reinforced through the discourse of the bully
victim binary with little acknowledgment of intersectional nature of race, gender, class and sexuality.
If the boundaries of normal are to be challenged and reshaped then Hayward (1998) argues that we must give individuals or groups the capacities to know how to
challenge and reshape. There is a need to offer a Foucauldian conceptualisation of power as a positive force which can enable and enact change. Power was
overwhelmingly viewed as a negative by both student and staff. There was little discussion of ways of subverting power other than ignoring, telling or through humour. The subjectivity of students is situated within the social and cultural norms and expectations in which they exist, their agency varies depending on the
relationships within those settings. The lack of clear guidance other than that of the current education psychology view of the victim/bully binary denies opportunities for both staff and students to escape from heteronormative discourses that mask the working of power in the broader sociological sense and effectively enables barriers to solving the ‘problem’ of bullying.