ArticlePDF Available

Bullying and Victimisation in Schools: A Restorative Justice Approach



Bullying at school causes enormous stress for many children and their families, and has long-term effects. School bullying has been identified as a risk factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour. Bullies are more likely to drop out of school and to engage in delinquent and criminal behaviour. The victims are more likely to have higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression and illness, and an increased tendency to suicide. This paper reports on a restorative justice program that was run in a primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but whose lessons have wider application. Early intervention has been advocated as the most appropriate way to prevent bullying. This paper outlines a framework based on restorative justice principles aimed at bringing about behavioural change for the individual while keeping schools and communities safe. The aim of restorative programs is to reintegrate those affected by wrongdoing back into the community as resilient and responsible members. Restorative justice is a form of conflict resolution and seeks to make it clear to the offender that the behaviour is not condoned, at the same time as being supportive and respectful of the individual. The paper highlights the importance of schools as institutions that can foster care and respect and provide opportunities to participate in processes that allow for differences to be worked through constructively. It recommends that schools be resourced and supported to address bullying because of the debilitating effect of this problem.
t r e n d s
i s s u e s
No. 219
Bullying and Victimisation
in Schools: A Restorative
Justice Approach
Brenda Morrison
in crime and criminal justice
February 2002
ISSN 0817-8542
ISBN 0 642 24252 6
Australian Institute
of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: 02 6260 9221
Fax: 02 6260 9201
For a complete list and the full text of the
papers in the Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice series, visit
the AIC web site at:
Disclaimer: This research paper does not
necessarily reflect the policy position of the
Commonwealth Government.
Adam Graycar
Bullying at school causes enormous stress for many children and their
families, and has long-term effects. School bullying has been identified as a risk
factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour. Bullies are more
likely to drop out of school and to engage in delinquent and criminal
behaviour. The victims are more likely to have higher levels of stress, anxiety,
depression and illness, and an increased tendency to suicide.
This paper reports on a restorative justice program that was run in a
primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), but whose lessons
have wider application.
Early intervention has been advocated as the most appropriate way to
prevent bullying. This paper outlines a framework based on restorative justice
principles aimed at bringing about behavioural change for the individual while
keeping schools and communities safe. The aim of restorative programs is to
reintegrate those affected by wrongdoing back into the community as resilient
and responsible members. Restorative justice is a form of conflict resolution
and seeks to make it clear to the offender that the behaviour is not condoned, at
the same time as being supportive and respectful of the individual.
The paper highlights the importance of schools as institutions that can
foster care and respect and provide opportunities to participate in processes
that allow for differences to be worked through constructively. It recommends
that schools be resourced and supported to address bullying because of the
debilitating effect of this problem.
In the last decade or so there has been increasing awareness that
bullying is a serious, and insidious, form of violence that plagues
the school system (Rigby 1996). Internationally, there are countless
tragic stories to be told. There is also building empirical evidence of
the consequences of bullying’s ill effects. Those who bully are more
likely to drop out of school, use drugs and alcohol, as well as
engage in subsequent delinquent and criminal behaviour
(Farrington 1993). Children who are bullied have higher levels of
stress, anxiety, depression, illness and suicidal ideation (Rigby
1998). For both, this cycle becomes an obstacle to learning, self-
development and effective citizenship. The consequences affect not
only the individuals themselves, and their families, but also society
at large, for it is society that supports those in the justice and health
care systems.
In Australia, research has identified school bullying as a risk
factor associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour (National
Crime Prevention 1999). Early intervention has been advocated as
the most appropriate way to break this cycle (Tremblay & Craig
1995). Schools may be the most appropriate institutions to focus on
reducing antisocial and criminal behaviour patterns in children,
while promoting health, resilience and social responsibility. Schools
bring together many people who influence and support children,
Australian Institute of Criminology
including parents, grandparents,
teachers, instructors and coaches,
as well as children’s peers. As a
microcosm of society, schools
have the potential to nurture and
integrate individuals within
society. However, they also have
the potential to stigmatise and
exclude (Morrison 2001).
Finding solutions to the
problem of bullying, and other
forms of school violence, is not
easy. In the past, various methods
have been tried, swinging from
communitarian approaches of
rehabilitation to conservative
approaches of punishment.
Broadly, the former values
compassion, while the latter
values accountability. Both
approaches aim to achieve
behavioural change for the
individual while keeping schools
and communities safe. However,
evidence is mixed as to which
approach works best. Tensions
between the advocates of each
approach are not uncommon. Is it
possible to incorporate both
compassion and accountability in
the sanctions we impose when
dealing with school violence?
Advocates of restorative justice
answer a tentative “yes” to this
question. Restorative justice is
about building communities of
care around individuals while not
condoning harmful behaviour; in
other words, holding individuals
accountable for their actions
within systems of support. This
paper presents a framework—one
based on restorative justice—to
better understand and address
school violence. The focus is on
school bullying, and the
intervention presented and
evaluated is the Responsible
Citizenship Program, which can
be tailored to the needs of
different schools and communities.
A Framework to Understand
and Address Bullying
and Victimisation
There is no single path that leads
a child to bullying others or to
being bullied, however poor social
adjustment is a common element.
A number of risk factors have
been identified which generally
fall into the categories of
individual differences, family and
school. These have been well
documented in a number of
studies (Farrington 1993; Rigby
1996). What is lacking is a solid
framework for understanding the
relationship between these
different risk factors, to help focus
the development of effective
interventions. A recent study has
found that many of the known
risk factors in predicting bullying
are mediated by one central
factor: how individuals manage
shame over a wrongdoing
(Ahmed et al. 2001).
Shame management can be
adaptive or maladaptive (Ahmed
et al. 2001). Poorly managed
shame can interfere with the
development and functioning of
an individual’s internal
sanctioning system, which
regulates the consistency and
appropriateness of social
behaviour. Briefly, shame comes
to the fore when we behave
inappropriately in relation to a
community of support, such as
our family or school. Through
taking responsibility for the
wrongdoing and making amends,
the shame can be acknowledged
and discharged. Through this
process, our feeling of
connectedness to the community
affected by our wrongdoing
remains intact. Shame
management can be maladaptive
when the functioning of an
individual’s internal sanctioning
system begins to break down and
shame is not effectively
discharged. Shame that has not
been discharged remains
internalised, and can be expressed
as anger. The reason why a child’s
internal sanctioning system may
not be operating optimally,
promoting mutual respect
between individuals, is
multifaceted. Simply, self-
regulation of relationships has
become ineffective. The
community that has evoked the
shame can contribute further to its
negative manifestation if the
individual is subjected to further
feelings of rejection from that
community. Individuals can lapse
into a mode of self-protection that
can lead to further breakdown of
social relationships, risking
harmful backlash.
Shame management has been
found to vary with four different
categories that characterise
bullying and victimisation
(Ahmed et al. 2001):
acknowledge shame and
discharge it;
victims—acknowledge shame
but are caught up in cycles of
self-critical thinking, through
ongoing feelings of rejection
from others, so their shame
becomes persistent, despite
acknowledgment of the
bullies—are less likely to
acknowledge shame, with the
shame over wrongdoing being
displaced onto others, often
manifest as anger and other
forms of antisocial behaviour;
bully/victims—feel the shame
but, like bullies, fail to
acknowledge it and further,
like victims, they are caught up
in cycles of self-critical
In summary, shame can be
conceptualised as an individual’s
social thermostat, mediating the
state of social relationships.
Adaptive shame management
strengthens social relationships;
maladaptive shame management
weakens social relationships.
Restorative Justice: Theory
and Practice
Social relationships are important
for regulating social life. This is a
central tenet of the practice of
restorative justice. Reintegrative
shaming theory supports this
practice. Braithwaite (1989) has
argued that there are two main
features inherent to restorative
processes. First, to achieve
successful reintegration the
process must involve the presence
and participation of a community
of support for the offender and
the victim. This community
would be made up of the people
who respect and care most about
these two (or more) people.
Australian Institute of Criminology
Second, the process of shaming
requires a confrontation over the
wrongdoing between the victim
and offender within this
community of support. The
process is restorative in that the
makes it clear to the offender
that the behaviour is not
condoned within the
community; and
is supportive and respectful of
the individual while not
condoning the behaviour.
The first point constitutes the
shaming aspect of the
intervention while the second
point provides the basis by which
the shaming process is of a
reintegrative (rather than a
stigmatising) nature.
The aim of restorative
programs is to reintegrate those
affected by wrongdoing back into
the community so that they may
become resilient and responsible
members of the community,
upholding its laws and values. A
restorative justice conference,
which brings together victims,
offenders and their respective
communities of care, is one such
intervention program. As
Braithwaite states (1999, p. 47):
Restorative justice conferences
may prevent crime by
facilitating a drift back to law-
supportive identities from law-
neutralising ones.
This process has been found to be
effective in schools, particularly in
addressing bullying (Cameron &
Thorseborne 2001). Despite this,
the use of restorative justice
conferencing in schools has
received mixed reviews and the
uptake of the practice has been
slow (Morrison 2001). The current
evidence suggests that what is
needed is broader institutional
support, in the form of a culture
shift that supports the process
(Ritchie & O’Connell 2001).
Culture shifts require
proactive interventions. The
Responsible Citizenship Program
is designed to meet this need. The
aim is to provide participants
with skills to work through
wrongdoing and incidents of
harm. While programs aimed at
creating culture shift need to
target all members of the school
community, the Responsible
Citizenship Program was
developed for students in primary
school as part of an early
intervention strategy. Ideally, the
program should complement a
range of restorative practices in
schools. Through engagement
with the program, teachers,
parents and other members of the
school community can also
develop their skills. It is hoped
this approach will address some
of the broader institutional
barriers that currently limit the
use of restorative justice in schools.
The Responsible Citizenship
Program: An Introduction
In practice, restorative justice is a
form of conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution programs have
been found to give students
important skills in reducing
harmful behaviour in schools
(Johnson & Johnson 1995). The
Responsible Citizenship Program
aims to incorporate a range of
related processes for maintaining
healthy relationships, including
community building, conflict
resolution and shame
management, under one
conceptual umbrella. Each
component is introduced
successively, beginning with a
community-building process that
rests on principles of restorative
Throughout the program
students are given space to voice
and express their views. Initial
emphasis is placed on creating a
safe place where concerns and
stories of harm at school can be
voiced. At the same time the
program aims to be fun and
engaging for students. As
relationships within the
community strengthen, students
are given an opportunity to learn
productive conflict resolution
skills through a focus on the
feelings associated with conflict
and how to resolve those feelings.
In this way the shame
management aspect is integrated
into the conflict resolution
component. Another important
aspect of the program is the peer-
to-peer learning focus, which aids
in the development of a culture
shift within the school.
Goleman, in his research on
emotional intelligence (1995),
argues that children need lessons
in coping with a repertoire of
emotions, particularly the
emotions involved in conflict, as
these are the ones that are often
masked. Becoming aware of
emotions, acknowledging them,
speaking about and acting on
them, are healthy skills to
develop. Through building this
awareness, escalations of conflict
and associated violence can often
be prevented.
Program Principles
The Responsible Citizenship
Program is grounded in a number
of principles of restorative justice,
including community building
and conflict resolution. In his
conceptualisation of restorative
justice, Braithwaite (1989) argues
that restorative justice is a
participatory process that
addresses wrongdoing while
offering respect to the parties
involved, through consideration of
the story each person tells of how
they were affected by the harmful
incident. Playing on the
program’s acronym (RCP),
respect (R), consideration (C) and
participation (P) become the core
program agreements. They are
developed through the learning
opportunities that the program
While these core principles
remain relevant throughout the
program, a second set of
principles is used to develop
students’ strategies on how to
resolve conflicts productively.
These principles can be applied to
a range of harmful behaviours in
schools. In the context of school
bullying, they are:
1. bullying and being bullied are
ways of behaving that can be
changed (Rigby 1996);
2. addressing wrongdoing, such
as bullying, concerns actions
and should not involve the
denigration of the whole person
(Moore & O’Connell 1994);
Australian Institute of Criminology
3. the harm done by bullying to
self and others must be
acknowledged (Retzinger &
Scheff 1996);
4. reparation for the harm done is
essential (Retzinger & Scheff
1996); and
5. both bullies and victims are
valued members of the school
community whose supportive
ties with others should be
strengthened through
participation in communities
of care (Bazemore & Umbreit
These five principles underpin the
conflict resolution process
developed for the Responsible
Citizenship Program. They are
introduced as the REACT keys, to
emphasize that resolving conflict
requires active participation.
Building on each letter from the
word REACT, the five principles
are presented to the students as
Repair the harm done
(Principle 4: Reparation);
Expect the best from others
(Principle 1: Change is
Acknowledge feelings/harm
done (Principle 3:
Care for others (Principle 5:
Building communities of care);
Take responsibility for
(Principle 2: Responsibility for
act without denigration).
In essence, restorative programs
are about nurturing positive
feelings (interest and excitement)
and providing avenues to
discharge negative feelings
(shame). Restorative practices
should lead to further
engagement with the community,
as evidenced by enhanced or re-
established community
participation. In order for this to
be sustained, for shame to be
effectively managed, individuals
need to develop skills for working
through differences. Through
these processes individuals can
build and renew productive
relationships, forging a resilient
and responsible community.
Program Workshops
The curriculum for the program
was developed for Year 5
students. The students spent one
hour with the facilitators twice a
week over five weeks (10 hours in
total). The ideas and concepts
were introduced through the use
of poster-making and role-
playing, working towards the
development and production of a
short video that told the story of a
conflict within the school and
how the students used the
REACT keys to resolve the harm.
Table 1 shows how the 10
workshops came together.
It is important to note that for
the workshops to be effective, the
facilitators must have knowledge
and experience of principles and
practices of restorative justice.
Further, for the learning outcomes
of the program to be sustained the
ideals must be integrated into the
wider school culture.
Program Evaluation
All Year 5 students in an ACT
government primary school (aged
10–11 years; n=30) participated in
the program. Two different
sessions were held so each group
was a manageable size (n=15).
These sessions ran in two
different terms. The program was
evaluated using a number of
quantitative and qualitative
methods. Quantitative data were
collected using the Life at School
Survey (Ahmed et al. 2001), which
was administered at the
beginning and the end of the
school year (pre- and post-
intervention). Further quantitative
measures were taken at the end of
each session through
questionnaires completed by
students and facilitators.
Qualitative data were also
collected through post-program
responses from the students,
teacher, principal and facilitators.
Two particular measures
within the survey are noteworthy
students’ feelings of safety
within the school community;
students’ use of adaptive and
maladaptive shame
management strategies.
Students’ feelings of safety within
the school were measured on a
four-point scale and increased
significantly over the course of
the year (from 2.9 to 3.8). This is
an encouraging shift but, with
only pre- and post-measures, it is
hard to know what accounts for
the change. The shame
management data offer clearer
Shame management was
measured using Ahmed’s (2001)
scale, which measures students’
use of adaptive and maladaptive
shame management strategies.
Students are presented with four
hypothetical scenarios, in which
they perpetrate an incident of
harm. The strategies are then
presented and students indicate
what they would do, answering
“yes” or “no”. The results showed
a small overall increase in
students’ reported use of adaptive
shame management skills: a shift
from 83 per cent to 87 per cent of
students reporting using these
strategies. The more interesting
Table 1: Responsible Citizenship Program workshop curriculum
1. Introduction of the Responsible Citizenship Program Posters
2. Developing RCP agreements: respect, consideration, participation Role play
3. Creating responsible citizenship at our school Posters
4. Working with our feelings—OOPS & OUCH Role play
5. Introduce REACT keys Posters
6. Video—school-based example of OOPS & OUCH & REACT keys Video
7. Planning a RCP video Video
8. Rehearsing a RCP video Video
9. Making a RCP video Video
10.RCP wrap-up and Responsible Citizenship Charter Posters
Australian Institute of Criminology
finding was that the use of
maladaptive shame management
skills decreased significantly, in
terms of both feelings of rejection
by others and displacement of
wrongdoing onto others. While
initially 33 per cent of students
reported they would feel rejected
from others following
wrongdoing, following the
program only 20 per cent
reported they would feel this
way. Further, while 27 per cent of
students reported using shame
displacement strategies before the
program, only 13 per cent of
students reported using these
strategies following the program.
In other words, students’ use of
strategies became less
characteristic of victims (who
typically feel they would be
rejected by others following
wrongdoing) and less
characteristic of bullies (who
typically displace their shame and
anger onto others). Overall, the
results are encouraging, as
students’ shame-management
skills became less maladaptive.
While developing shame
management skills was a central
aim of the program, without a
control group it is hard to make a
strong claim. However, the other
measures, both quantitative and
qualitative, are encouraging and
support the positive effects of the
Responsible Citizenship Program.
Measures of respect,
consideration and participation,
the core principles of the
program, were taken at the end of
each session. Students were asked
three questions, answering on a
seven-point scale. How many
people in the group:
showed you respect during
today’s activities?
considered your feelings
during today’s activities?
gave you an opportunity to
participate in today’s
The two facilitators also
independently rated each
student’s behaviour in terms of
respect, consideration and
participation. A number of
patterns emerged from these data.
Although the students’ ratings
were generally higher than those
of the facilitators, the overall
pattern is consistent. The average
ratings for all three measures
increased from the start to the
finish of the program. The greatest
change was for consideration (3.4
to 5.2 for students; 3.0 to 4.7 for
facilitators) and participation (4.3
to 5.7 for students; 4.2 to 5.8 for
facilitators), and least for respect
(5.0 to 5.2 for students; 3.7 to 4.9
for facilitators), although the
measures of respect were already
quite high, particularly for students.
Interestingly, there was a
systematic drop in measures of
respect and consideration a few
workshops into the program. The
measures then increased again
until the completion of the videos.
This is not surprising, given that
the program aims to challenge the
way students interact in terms of
upholding the respect/
principles. In summary, the
results are positive, indicating the
students put into practice the
program’s emphasis on building
respect, consideration and
The post-program qualitative
data mirror this positive result.
All parties involved in the
development of the program
found it to be of benefit to the
students. This included the
teacher, the principal, the
facilitators and the students
themselves. The teacher wrote:
I began noticing the use of
particular jargon associated with
the program in everyday
situations…The program was a
great success.
The principal offered:
The practical approach allowed
students to develop strategies to
cope with real-life situations.
The class climate created…was
one of support and respect for
other students…The most
important aspect of the program
was giving students appropriate
strategies for coping with
One student summed up what it
means to be a responsible citizen
at school:
It means that if you do
something wrong, or if others
do something wrong, you know
how to fix things.
Six months after completing the
program, the students clearly
remembered important aspects of
the program. One student said:
The leaders…were all positive
and helped us understand how
other people felt. We learnt what
to do if we did hurt someone or
someone hurt you.
The responses received suggested
the benefits of the program. In
particular these data indicate that
the program was able to create a
shift in the way students interact
with one another in terms of the
core components of respect,
consideration and participation.
Further, students’ reported shame
management strategies became
less maladaptive. While tentative,
the results of this initial pilot
program are encouraging.
The adaptability of this
program needs to be stressed. The
principles upon which the
Responsible Citizenship Program
is based are more important than
the program per se. It can be
customised to meet the needs and
resources of different schools. As
the teacher put it:
I could see this program
operating very effectively in
school and could be modified
simply to start at an earlier age.
The program thus provides a base
from which other programs can
grow and adapt. This is important
to the long-term research and
development that now needs to
be done. A more rigorous
evaluation is needed across a
range of programs and
populations. It is hoped this initial
step is sufficient to encourage
others to embark on the
development of their own
program that fosters responsible
citizenship in their school through
engagement with principles
grounded in restorative justice.
Implementing Restorative Justice
in Schools
Restorative justice, through
valuing relationships, challenges
everyone involved. This is
important. To sustain any shift in
the way schools operate lies in
each party questioning, in the
most fundamental way, their own
Australian Institute of Criminology
General Editor, Trends and Issues in
Crime and Criminal Justice series:
Dr Adam Graycar, Director
Australian Institute of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
Note: Trends and Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice are refereed papers.
beliefs and practices. The central,
dominant theme to be addressed
is the use of punishment and
control in achieving behavioural
compliance. These practices value
domination. In contrast,
restorative justice values
relationships of non-domination.
As Cameron and Thorsborne
(2001, p. 183) have noted:
School behaviour management
plans have focused largely on
what should happen (penalties
and tariffs) to offenders when
(school) rules are broken, with
only limited understanding of
the impact on those in the school
community of the offending
behaviour. Restorative justice in
the school setting views
misconduct not as school-rule-
breaking, and therefore a
violation of the institution, but
as a violation against people and
relationships in the school and
wider school community.
Emphasis on behavioural
education rather than control goes
a long way to achieving
behavioural compliance. The aim
should be to take a student, and
their community of support,
through a process by which they
can understand the consequences
of their behaviour for themselves
and others, to develop relational
thinking and to bring
understanding to a collective
level. Punishment instils a
narrow, selfish way of thinking;
the focus is on oneself rather than
others. Shame can only be
managed in healthy ways when
individuals are part of healthy
which foster care and respect,
consideration of different
possibilities and ideas, and
opportunities to participate in
processes that allow people to
work through their differences
constructively. Schools, as
society’s primary developmental
institution, have an important
agenda to take up here. It is vital
that they are resourced and
supported to address this
debilitating social problem
because, in the end, bullying and
victimisation is a problem that
affects everyone.
The author would like to thank Valerie
Braithwaite, Barbara Grant and an
anonymous reviewer for their comments on
this paper. Thanks must also go to the
Criminology Research Council for their
financial support of this project, and the
students and teachers at Hawker Primary
School, who agreed to work with us on this
pilot project. Particular thanks go to Jeff
Sheridan, the principal, Jan Spencer, the
Year 5 teacher, and the engaging Year 5
students who participated in the program.
Special thanks must also go to the two
facilitators, Jonathan Hawkes and Alisa
Walters, whose dedication to making the
Responsible Citizenship Program a fun and
enjoyable learning experience for the
students was an inspiration to all.
Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J. &
Braithwaite, V. 2001, Shame
Management Through Reintegration,
Cambridge University Press,
Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. 1994,
Balanced and Restorative Justice:
Program Summary, Balanced and
Restorative Justice Project, United
States Department of Justice and
Delinquency Prevention,
Washington DC.
Braithwaite, J.B. 1989, Crime, Shame and
Reintegration, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
1999, “Restorative justice: Assessing
optimistic and pessimistic
accounts”, in M. Tonry (ed.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 25, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–127.
Cameron, L. & Thorsborne, M. 2001,
“Restorative justice and school
discipline: Mutually exclusive?” in
J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (eds.),
Restorative Justice and Civil Society,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 180–94.
Farrington, D.P. 1993, “Understanding
and preventing bullying”, in
M. Tonry & N. Morris (eds.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 17, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 381–
Goleman, D. 1995, Emotional Intelligence,
Bantam, New York.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1995,
“Why violence prevention
programs don’t work—and what
does?” Educational Leadership,
vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 63–8.
Moore, D.B. & O’Connell, T.A. 1994,
“Family conferencing in Wagga
Wagga: A communitarian model
of justice”, in C. Alder &
J. Wundersitz (eds.), Family
Conferencing and Juvenile Justice:
The Way Forward or Misplaced
Optimism? Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra, pp. 45–86.
Morrison, B.E. 2001, “The school
system: Developing its capacity in
the regulation of a civil society”,
in J. Braithwaite & H. Strang
(eds.), Restorative Justice and Civil
Society, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 195–210.
National Crime Prevention 1999,
Pathways to Prevention:
Developmental and Early
Intervention Approaches to Crime in
Australia, Attorney General’s
Department, Canberra.
Retzinger, S.M. & Scheff, T.J. 1996,
“Shame and the social bond”, in
D. Parker, R. Dalziell & I. Wright
(eds.), Shame and the Modern Self,
Australian Scholarly Publishing,
Melbourne, pp. 6–20.
Ritchie, J. & O’Connell, T. 2001,
“Restorative justice and the
contest between the relational and
institutional paradigms”, in
J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (eds.),
Restorative Justice and Civil Society,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 149–64.
Rigby, K. 1996, Bullying in Schools: What
To Do About It, Australian Council
for Education Research Limited,
—— 1998, “The relationship between
reported health and involvement
in bully/victim problems among
male and female secondary school
students”, Journal of Health
Psychology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 465–
Tremblay, R.E. & Craig, W.M. 1995,
“Developmental crime
prevention”, Crime Justice, vol. 19,
pp. 151–236.
Dr Brenda Morrison works at the
Centre for Restorative Justice,
Research School of Social Sciences,
Australian National University.
... Perundungan (bullying) merupakan salah satu masalah yang sering terjadi di sekolah di berbagai negara (Craig et al, 2009;Smith et al, 2002) dan memiliki dampak negatif terhadap korban (Hernández & Seem, 2004;Juvonen et al, 2011), pelaku Open Access: (Wolke et al, 2013;Gastic, 2008;Morrison, 2002), maupun siswa-siswa lain yang menjadi saksi dari kejadian perundungan (Pečjak & Pirc, 2017;Cowie, 2014;Thornberg et al, 2012;Tsang et al, 2011). ...
Full-text available
Perundungan di sekolah semakin menjadi masalah yang meluas di seluruh dunia dan memiliki dampak negatif terhadap suasana di sekolah, terutama terhadap siswa. Siswa dapat terlibat dalam perundungan sebagai pelaku, korban, atau saksi. Pengalaman perundungan, baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung, dapat mempengaruhi persepsi siswa terhadap tindakan perundungan, baik bagi siswa laki-laki maupun perempuan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui persepsi siswa terhadap tindak pidana perundungan di sekolah. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan subyek penelitian adalah 209 siswa Madrasah Aliyah Negeri yang ada di wilayah Jogyakarta. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan siswa Madrasah Aliyah Negeri yang ada di wilayah Jogyakarta sudah mendapatkan penjelasan tentang bulling. Sebagian besar siswa juga mengetahu tentang bahaya bullying dan akibat yang ditimbulkan. Untuk menghindari terjadinya bullying semakin meningkat, siswa juga bersedia membantu temannya yang menjadi korban bullying dan melakukan perlawanan apabila menjadi korban bullying.
... Moreover, reducing the variables that favor such actions (known as risk reduction) and teaching children excellent prosocial interpersonal skills are essential components of the primary prevention of bullying and being bullied [10]. Overall, Early intervention has been advocated as the most appropriate way to prevent bullying [11], and it is currently the best way to address youth violence. ...
Full-text available
This article examines the correlation between childhood school bullying experience and later criminal behavior. In this study, I will propose an experimental design to examine the correlation between these two variables more straightforwardly. The first experiments would presuppose that children or teenagers who bully others or experience bullying stand a higher chance of committing crimes and exhibit certain antisocial tendencies than children and teenagers who have not gone through situations connected to school bullying. When children or teenagers experience bullying at school, their mental health and behavioral changes will be the primary internal factors when examining criminal motivations. The author will also use this perspective to pinpoint further criminals' personality features that may motivate their criminal behavior and link. A reference group of white men with comparable traits and social backgrounds was used in the pre-determined experiment. Considering the follow-up time and sample size, we controlled the age range of the follow-up samples to a specific value. We thus set up two environments to conduct control experiments. Questionnaires will be the primary procedure for collecting scores and will be calculated and organized based on these data. And to analyze the final score, statistical analysis methods such as two-way repeated measures ANOVA will be used. Overall, the project focuses on different sections, including the introduction, experimental design based on our topic, hypothesized results, and a discussion section on confounding variables and implications for future experiments.
... First, the Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) was used to screen proactive and reactive aggressors [2,3]. Previous studies of intervention for schoolchildren with aggressive behavior and peer victimization associated with school bullying have mainly focused on two target groups: bullies and victims [1,4,5]. The efficacy of interventions has been questioned [6], the reason might be not tailor-made for specific subtypes of aggressive behaviour or victimization. ...
... Suppressive techniques focus on harshly and publicly shaming bullies. Interestingly, Morrison (2002) found that, in the U.S., suppressive measures might actually make the relationship between bullies and victims worse. It is highly likely that such measures would have a similar outcome in Hong Kong. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the last twenty years, there has been an increasing awareness of peer violence in schools as a negative phenomenon that can cause numerous short-term or long-term consequences for children. If research results continuously show us that peer violence in schools persists (Јованова, 2008) and, in some schools, it even increases, the need is necessarily imposed to find an appropriate solution for managing the violence. To identify an efficient solution for dealing with this phenomenon is not an easy task. Historically, different approaches have been used, ranging from rehabilitative approaches to punishmentbased approaches. The former approach is based on compassion, the latter on responsibility. Traditionally, school systems often employ punitive methods to address and respond to pupils’ misbehaviour. Most often these methods include measures for excluding pupils from school (suspension or exclusion) leading to the removal and isolation of pupils with inappropriate behaviour (Lodi, Perrella, Lepri, Scarpa, & Patrizi, 2022), to bring order to schools. In search for another, different and more efficient model that would be based on taking responsibility and compassion, restorative justice becomes increasingly promoted in schools (Peovska, 2021) as one of the ways to deal with peer violence. In an international context and in the wake of the adopted Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers (2018) 8 related to restorative justice in criminal matters, the development of restorative approaches outside legal systems, such as schools, is increasingly encouraged (Lodi, Perrella, Lepri, Scarpa, & Patrizi, 2022). To this end, a large number of countries in the world have tried to address the school violence through restorative practices which, instead of punishing the perpetrator, focus on reconciling the broken relationship, removing the harmful consequences, and parties actively participating in solving the problem. Restorative practices are oriented not only towards alternative methods of inappropriate and violent behaviour management, but also towards promoting prosocial behaviours through the development of socio-emotional skills (empathy, awareness, and responsibility), in order to build safe school communities that promote well-being (Lodi, Perrella, Lepri, Scarpa, & Patrizi, 2022). This would mean that restorative practices and measures are alternatives to punitive measures, offering positive ways for conflict resolution between children and a good basis for promoting and developing personal and relational skills, such as empathy and assertiveness.
Full-text available
Min afhandling - som er artikelbaseret - retænker mobning fra socialdynamiske perspektiver. Fra de teoretiske landskaber af sociale læringsforståelser forstår jeg mobning som indlært praksis blandt sine egne. Og egne skal her forstås som relationer i formelle sociale settings som arbejdspladser og skoler. Afhandlingen er empirisk båret med fund fra grundskolemiljøer - men der tilbydes også teoretiske greb ind i mobbeland såsom 'longing for belonging', 'genkendelsesparadokser' og 'lærere som skolemonitorer'.
Full-text available
Artiklen præsenterer en Lord of the Flies-tilgang til mobning, der dækker over forståelser, der forbinder mobning med en indbygget krigerisk indstilling i mennesker. Denne forståelse hører til inden for de individualiserede forklaringer på mobning, som har en vis udbredelse blandt forskningsprojektets lærerinformanter. Artiklen hviler på forskellige metodikker: Kvantitative data, kvalitative data og teoretiske refleksioner. Der følges et spor på tværs af disse metodikker, nemlig sammenhænge mellem skoleklassens sociale liv og mobbemønstre mellem eleverne. Artiklen tilbyder begrebet ‘longing for belonging’ til at forstå mobning som en uformel fællesskabsform mellem elever, der forsøger at dække manglen på tilhørsforhold i det formelle skolefællesskab. ‘Longing for belonging’ kan således forstås som en modpol til Lord of the Flies-tilgangen. I sådan en forståelse indeholder mobning både sociale og ikkesociale aspekter. Det sociale ligger i ønsket om at skabe noget at være fælles om. Det ikke-sociale ligger i udstødelse af klassekammerater fra det uformelle vi. Analysen foreslår, at mobning i dette perspektiv kan ses som ‘inkluderet eksklusion’.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Περίληψη Η Παιδεία του Πολίτη αναγνωρίζεται ως παιδαγωγική μάθησης που αναπτύσσεται παράλληλα με το αναλυτικό πρόγραμμα και στοχεύει στην καλλιέργεια ενεργών και δημοκρατικών πολιτών στην πα- γκόσμια κοινωνία. Η αξία τέτοιων παιδαγωγικών πρακτικών έχει τονιστεί ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία δε- καετία από πλήθος διεθνών οργανισμών. Παρόλο που σχετικές πρακτικές μάθησης έχουν εφαρμοστεί εκτεταμένα σε εκπαιδευτικές μονάδες σε όλο τον κόσμο, δεν έχει υπάρξει εκτενής μελέτη σχετικά με το ελληνικό σχολείο. Σκοπός της παρούσας μελέτης είναι να αναδείξει τις εκπαιδευτικές πρακτικές Παιδείας του Πολίτη καθώς και τις προεκτάσεις που μπορεί να έχουν για την ενσωμάτωση της παιδα- γωγικής αυτής στο ελληνικό δημοτικό σχολείο. Η συγκεκριμένη έρευνα χρησιμοποιεί τη μεθοδολογία της έρευνας δράσης και κατά κύριο λόγο ποιοτικά εργαλεία συλλογής δεδομένων και εστιάζει στις πρακτικές διδασκαλίας που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν από τους εκπαιδευτικούς. Τα αποτελέσματά της αναδεικνύουν τις προκλήσεις και τις ευκαιρίες εφαρμογής της Παιδείας του Πολίτη στο αναλυτικό πρόγραμμα και της επαγγελματικής εξέλιξης των εκπαιδευτικών. Abstract Global citizenship education is recognised as a pedagogical approach used alongside the curricu- lum application, aiming to cultivate active and democratic citizens within our global societies. The importance of promoting a global agenda in education has been highlighted by many international organisations. Although many countries have been working towards mainstreaming this approach in formal education there has not been substantial research evidence coming from the context of Greece. Hence, this study aims to explore how Global Citizenship Education practices can be incorporated within the context of one Greek primary school. This study adopts an action research methodology and predominantly uses qualitative methods. The findings present the challenges and the opportunities of incorporating Global Citizenship education in one Greek primary school. Furthermore, it reveals the teaching and learning practices that were implemented by the teach- ers, as well as opportunities for their professional development.
Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice, Sixth Edition, offers a clear and convincing explanation of restorative justice, a movement within criminal justice with ongoing worldwide influence. The book explores the broad appeal of this vision and offers a brief history of its roots and development as an alternative to an impersonal justice system focused narrowly on the conviction and punishment of those who break the law. Instead, restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behavior, using cooperative processes that include all the stakeholders. The book presents the theory and principles of restorative justice, and discusses its four cornerpost ideas: Inclusion, Encounter, Repair, and Cohesion. Multiple models for how restorative justice may be incorporated into criminal justice are explored, and the book proposes an approach to assessing the extent to which programs or systems are actually restorative in practice. The authors also suggest six strategic objectives to significantly expand the use and reach of restorative justice and recommended tactics to make progress towards the acceptance and adoption of restorative programs and systems.
Full-text available
For informal justice to be restorative justice, it has to be about restoring victims, restoring offenders, and restoring communities as a result of participation of a plurality of stakeholders. This means that victim-offender mediation, healing circles, family group conferences, restorative probation, reparation boards on the Vermont model, whole school antibullying programs, Chinese Bang Jiao programs, and exit conferences following Western business regulatory inspections can at times all be restorative justice. Sets of both optimistic propositions and pessimistic claims can be made about restorative justice by contemplating the global diversity of its practice. Examination of both the optimistic and the pessimistic propositions sheds light on prospects for restorative justice. Regulatory theory (a responsive regulatory pyramid) may be more useful for preventing crime in a normatively acceptable way than existing criminal law jurisprudence and explanatory theory. Evidence-based reform must move toward a more productive checking of restorative justice by liberal legalism, and vice verse.
Full-text available
This groundbreaking book is a follow-on to John Braithwaite's best-selling and influential Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Shame management is becoming a central concept, in theoretical and practical terms, across a range of fields. This book makes a major contribution to the advancement of shame in a theoretical sense, and through its detailed analysis of shame management in cases of drink-driving and school bullying, it increases our understanding of reintegrative shaming in a practical sense. Criminologists have been waiting for this book, but for psychology, sociology and other areas as well, this accessible book serves as an introduction to the concepts of shame, guilt and embarrassment. It has two major theoretical outcomes: it develops an ethical-identity conception of shame, and second, a theory of reintegrative shame management which will make it a central and lasting work. Written by the key exponents of restorative justice, the book is an important re-statement of the theory and practice of shaming. It will develop important and often controversial debates about punishment, shaming and restorative justice to a new level.
This article proposes that shame may be the hidden key to understanding our civilization, in the sense that shame or its anticipation is virtually ubiquitous, yet, at the same time, usually invisible. C.H. Cooley's idea of the looking glass self implies that shame and pride can be seen as signals of the state of the social bond. Theoretical work by Cooley and Erving Goffman imply ubiquity, and empirical studies by Norbert Elias and Helen Lewis provide support. The findings of Elias and Lewis also suggest that shame is usually invisible; Elias stated this proposition explicitly. Like other emotions, such as fear, shame can be recursive, acting back on itself (shame about shame). In unusual circumstances, limitless recursion of shame may explain extreme cases of silence or violence.
Prevention experiments with children have targeted the development of antisocial behavior and confirm the hypothesis that early childhood factors are important precursors of delinquent behavior and that a cumulative effect model best fits the data. Experiments have aimed to prevent criminal behavior or one of three important delinquency risk factors: socially disruptive behavior, cognitive deficits, and poor parenting. Experiments with juvenile delinquency as an outcome demonstrate that positive results are more likely when interventions are aimed at more than one risk factor, last for a relatively long period of time, and are implemented before adolescence. Experiments featuring early childhood interventions with socially disruptive behavior, cognitive deficits, or parenting as an outcome generally have positive effects. The majority of studies, small-scale confirmation or replication experiments, need to be followed by large-scale field experiments that test the efficacy and cost of implementation in re...
Bullying is repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person by a more powerful one. The prevalence of bullying by and of school children is quite high; in some studies, about half of children were bullies, and over half were victims. Boys bully more than girls, but boys and girls are victimized about equally. Generally, bullies are aggressive, tough, strong, confident, and impulsive. Victims are unpopular, lonely, rejected, anxious, depressed, unwilling to retaliate, and lacking in self-esteem. Bullying occurs especially at places and times when adult supervision and surveillance is minimal. There is some continuity over time between bullying and violent crime. Prevention methods aim to improve the social and friendship skills of the victim and the empathy of the bully and to improve adult supervision and "whole-school" environments. In Norway, a nationwide campaign against bullying seemed to be successful.
Some violence prevention programs do not work because they are poorly targeted, provide materials without implementation strategies, apply neighborhood methods to school settings, and project unrealistic notions about the social forces underlying violence. Schools cannot eliminate all conflict but should go beyond violence prevention to create a cooperative context, decrease in-school risk factors, use academic controversy to increase learning, and teach students to resolve conflicts constructively. (MLH)