Journal of Interpersonal

Violence
http://jiv.sagepub.com/

The Experiences of Parents Who Report Youth Bullying

Victimization to School Officials
James R. Brown, Matthew C. Aalsma and Mary A. Ott
J Interpers Violence 2013 28: 494 originally published online 27 August 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0886260512455513

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/28/3/494

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

Additional services and information for Journal of Interpersonal Violence can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/28/3/494.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 24, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 27, 2012

What is This?
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on October 2, 2013
455513
ournal of Interpersonal ViolenceBrown et al.
2012
JIV28310.1177/0886260512455513J

Article
Journal of Interpersonal Violence

The Experiences of 28(3) 494­–518

© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Parents Who Report sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260512455513
Youth Bullying http://jiv.sagepub.com

Victimization to
School Officials

James R. Brown, PhD1, Matthew C. Aalsma, PhD2,

and Mary A. Ott, MD2

Abstract
Current research offers a limited understanding of parental experiences
when reporting bullying to school officials. This research examines the expe-
riences of middle-school parents as they took steps to protect their bullied
youth. The qualitative tradition of interpretive phenomenology was used to
provide in-depth analysis of the phenomena. A criterion-based, purposeful
sample of 11 parents was interviewed face-to-face with subsequent phone
call follow-ups. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded. MAX qda
software was used for data coding. In analyzing the interviews, paradigm
cases, themes, and patterns were identified. Three parent stages were found:
discovering, reporting, and living with the aftermath. In the discovery stage,
parents reported using advice-giving in hopes of protecting their youth. As
parents noticed negative psychosocial symptoms in their youth escalate, they
shifted their focus to reporting the bullying to school officials. All but one
parent experienced ongoing resistance from school officials in fully engaging
the bullying problem. In the aftermath, 10 of the 11 parents were left with
two choices: remove their youth from the school or let the victimization

1
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, WI, USA
2
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:
James R. Brown, PhD, LCSW, University of Wisconsin, 800 Algoma Boulevard, Oshkosh, WI
54901, USA
Email: brownj@uwosh.edu
Brown et al. 495

continue. One paradigm case illustrates how a school official met parental
expectations of protection. This study highlights a parental sense of ambigu-
ity of school officials’ roles and procedures related to school reporting and
intervention. The results of this study have implications in the development
and use of school-wide bullying protocols and parental advocacy.

Keywords
bullying, parent, trauma, school response, middle-school victimization, anti-
bullying policy, interpersonal violence, qualitative

Early within the emergence of bullying research, Olweus (1995) recog-

nized the international right for youth to be safe from the repeated, inten-
tional humiliation and oppression of bullying. Yet bullying is a common
occurrence in schools (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2001). Results from a
U.S. national study of youth grades 6 to 10 suggest that 3,245,904 students
are being moderately to severely victimized by bullies each school year
(Nansel et al., 2001). Victims of bullying commonly experience higher
rates of school absenteeism, emotional maladjustment, psychosomatic
problems, poor relationships and loss of friends, low self-worth and self-
esteem, and rates of depression and anxiety, in comparison to the general
school population (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Eslea et
al., 2003; Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006;
Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Nansel et al., 2001).
These health consequences clearly impact a victim’s quality of life. Scandi-
navian bullied youths, ages 12 to 13, report three main feelings from being
bullied: loneliness, exclusion, and helplessness (Kvarme, Helseth, & Sae-
ternen, 2010). Victims reported a desire to have their victimization recog-
nized, to receive assistance from school staff, and to be included by peers.
Although youths may not be likely to report their victimization (Mishna,
Pepler, & Wiener, 2006), evidence suggests youth are more likely to report
to a supportive parent than to their teacher (Holt, Kaufman Kantor, & Fin-
kelhor, 2009). This may be because of a lack of school follow-up. For
instance, up to 36% of middle-school youth reported that there was no fol-
low-up or intervention after bullying was reported to a school official
(Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007). Therefore, parents may be a vital
line of defense. Research suggests a need for parents to notify schools and
work collaboratively to resolve bullying (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004;
Leff, 2007). Benbenishty and Astor (2005) have underscored this aspect of
parents by stating “one of the most important perspectives that should be
496 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

added to studies of school violence is that of the students’ parents” (p. 163).
Therefore, this study examines the experience of middle-school parents
reporting the bullying of their youth to a school official.
In examining parental response to bullying, Terrean-Miller (2006) reported
that while over half of the parents knew their youth was being bullied, most
did nothing to intervene, according to their bullied youth’s report. In addition,
data suggests that maternal caregivers’ perception of their youth’s emotional
distress was a significant predictor for mothers acting to report this event. A
parent’s decision to contact their youth’s school when bullying is discovered
may in part be because of how a parent perceives their youth’s school.
Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Duong (2011) found that contrary to their research
hypothesis, parents were less likely to report bullying to a school official if
the parent had the perception of the school as “safe” and “supportive” (p.
331). When parents perceived the school climate negatively, they were more
likely to contact a school official to make a report. Parents’ perception of
school safety shifts negatively as the child becomes older. Therefore, middle
school and high schools may be perceived as less safe than elementary
schools by parents.
A qualitative study by Humphrey and Crisp’s (2008) of Australian par-
ents with kindergarten children found that when parents did report bullying,
school officials frequently reported to parents that they were unaware of
bullying events. Furthermore, parents perceived that school officials were
unwilling to use the term bullying or bully when confronted by the behavior.
Instead, school officials called the behavior “inappropriate” or “unaccept-
able behavior” (p. 48). Parents in the study perceived school officials as
unwilling to take matters of being bullied seriously and provide protection
through a school intervention. These actions from school officials left these
parents feeling powerless, angry, and tainted with a sense of guilt in their
inability to protect their children from school bullying. Because varying per-
ceptions of the seriousness and clarity of what constitutes bullying (Espelage
& Swearer, 2003), school officials may be unsure how best to intervene
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Mishna et al., 2006). A portion of such deci-
sion-making may fall upon school administrators.

School Administrators
A large part of school discipline in and outside of the classroom is deferred
to school administrators or principals. On top of this priority, school princi-
pals work closely with teaching staff to monitor and plan for academic
benchmarks on which all school officials will be evaluated. Therefore, a
sizable portion of time and other resources are placed into maximizing
future student academic scores. This focus, mandated by macro and mezzo
Brown et al. 497

systemic forces (e.g., federal and state governments, communities, families,

etc.), can impede on classroom content that promotes social and emotional
learning. Principals must also focus on new or updated policies that are
constantly evolving, for example, No Child Left Behind (Dake, Price,
Telljohann, & Funk, 2004). These demands are coupled with scarce
resources that place administrators in a position to cut trainings and services
for their school staff (Dake et al., 2004; Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell, &
Valentine, 1999) These cuts may include anti-bully training (Dake et al.,
2004; Limber & Small, 2003).
Principals’ perceptions of school bullying may be different than other
school faculty and staff. Dornfeld-Januzzi (2006) examined education pro-
fessionals in two suburban middle schools in the United States. The sample
contained five principals, 97 teachers, six guidance counselors, and 19
paraprofessionals. Principals as a group believed that bullying, by either
male or female students, was less problematic in their schools compared to
the other three groups. Principals also ranked bullying prevention efforts in
school as being less important compared to other matters, for example No
Child Left Behind, staff development, and student attendance. Principals
from 378 randomly selected U.S. schools revealed another reason why
bullying prevention is not focused on in schools. Their survey responses
suggest that “after the fact activities,” such as calling parents versus taking
preventive measures, were a better means of reducing bullying (Dake et al.,
2004, p. 384). Although principals in the sample largely stated that there
would be no barriers to using a whole-school approach anti-bullying pro-
gram, they saw it as a low priority relative to the other concerns they faced.
Administrators may believe that an anti-bullying program is unnecessary
if they have an anti-bullying policy in place. When analyzing policy for
Illinois secondary schools, MacLeod (2007) found that just over half of
school administrators had a specific anti-bullying policy in place that included
a definition of bullying and a consequence to the behavior. However, the major-
ity did not include interventions for the victim, bully, or bystanders. Administrators
may be overlooking how bullying affects school attendance, academic achieve-
ment, teacher competence, public support for their school, and the perception of
school safety (MacLeod, 2007). This suggests the need for further understanding
of the emotional consequences for youth and their parents.

Theoretical Perspectives
In reviewing bullying literature from the previous decade, over one dozen
theories have been used in research publications to predict and explain bul-
lying, including: self-efficacy theory, attraction theory, dominance theory,
498 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

restorative justice theory, differential emotions theory, perceptual-control

theory, resiliency theory, problem-solving theory, self-concept theory, social
cognitive theory, social cognitive theory, self-concept theory, stress and cop-
ing theory, empowerment theory, psychodynamic theory, and ecological/
systems theory. Although each theory may be effective in predicting and
explaining a portion of the bullying phenomena, no one theory is complete
in describing all aspects of bullying. For instance, psychodynamic theory can
be helpful in uncovering the meaning of a bully’s behavior. For example, as
the child develops and experiences stress, they may be unable to “hold on to
his or her negative feelings.” Hence, the bully finds a way to get rid of the
negative feelings by finding a victim to be “a container for them” (White,
2004). Although this process explains an aspect of bullying internally, psy-
chodynamic theory lacks an explanation of external group dynamics that are
an important part of bullying.
Because bullying is often seen as a group activity, social ecological theo-
ries and models are often used within studies of bullying (Doll, Song,
& Siemers, 2004; Henderson & Hymel, 2003; Limber, 2004; Rodkin &
Hodges, 2003; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Concepts
within the theory focus on power, exploitation, and conflict that may exist in
the social and physical world (Turner, 1996). The eco-systems perspective
suggests that by intervening or changing the structure of the environment,
behavioral responses are altered. One example is the implementation of
whole-school programs that use such a framework (Olweus, 2003). The
whole-school anti-bullying process often begins with an assessment of prev-
alence, severity, and locations where bullying occurs (Garrett, 2001). From
this data, stakeholders look at ways to reduce the problem (Olweus, 2003).
By changing one part of system, other changes in the environment are
impacted. Those experiencing the change in the environment have to adapt
(e.g., sanctions for bullying or placing teachers in bullying hotspots). The
social ecological framework is also used to improve a school’s ethos by
decreasing the social desirability to bully.
Because little is known about this specific phenomenon of parents
reporting bullying in a state that has an anti-bullying law, we constructed
the overarching question for this study: What are parents’ lived-experiences
when reporting to a school official that their middle school youth is being
bullied? This question requires depth over breadth, and therefore, a qualita-
tive method was chosen.
A research tradition that is designed to elucidate understanding and
meaning-making is interpretive phenomenology. This particular qualitative
tradition can add to new understandings and meanings that advance
the discipline’s knowledge of the bullying phenomena. Philosophically, the
Brown et al. 499

tradition does not posit politically or psychologically predetermined frame-

works or attempt to explain or reconcile an underlying cause of a particular
experience; the tradition demands an absence of applying a theory to
explain or predict in either pre- or postanalysis (Diekelmann & Ironside,
2005). This absence of viewing the phenomena through a prescribed theory
runs counter to the epistemic model of social science research (Flyvbjerg,
2005). However, interpretive phenomenology demands that all experiences
that emerge from parents are kept open without postulating a theory to con-
tort the data. The process of inquiry demands the researcher listen closely,
question, reflect, recheck, and interpret important dimensions that emerge
from the narratives of participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2003; Patton,
2002). Therefore, we sought to interpret parents’ experiences of reporting
and to stay close to the experience itself (Patton, 2002; Smythe, Ironside,
Sims, Swenson, & Spence, 2008).

Methods
Subjects

After receiving IRB approval and certification (#EX0812-43B) from Indiana

University, Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, notification
of the study was advertised from January to April of 2009 using state-wide
flyers, electronic bulletin boards, and news write-ups. The purposeful sample
of 11 middle-school parents was well within the five to 25 participant range
suggested by Creswell (2007) for phenomenological research. All partici-
pants were living in Indiana, a state that has had an anti-bullying law in place
since July, 2005. All parents were White, with five reporting rural residence,
four suburban, and one urban. Every parent’s youth attended a different
school district. There were a variety of types of bullying that parents had
discovered (see Table 1). Inclusion criteria for participation included five
benchmarks. All parents in this study agreed that the Olweus (2001) defini-
tion of bullying matched their youth’s victimization (see Table 2).

Interview Guide
To develop the interview guide, two interviews were conducted and recorded
with a mother who had repeatedly reported her daughter being bullied to
middle- and high-school officials. The transcripts were reviewed by the lead
researcher and six faculty members versed in interpretive phenomenology.
This review resulted in a 16-question semistructured interview guide
500 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Table 1. Parent Demographics

Rural, Types of
Urban, Ethnic Bullying
or Backg- Victimization
Parent Participants Suburban round Occupations Experienced
Tom’s Mom & Dad Suburban White M: Elementary Librarian Verbal, Physical,
F: Middle School Teacher Relational
Chelsea’s Mom Suburban White M: Administrative Assistant Verbal
F: Attorney
Sandra’s Mom Rural White M: Preschool Aid Verbal, Physical,
F: Bus Driver Cyber
Elizabeth’s Mom Rural White M: Dental Office Manager Verbal
F: Unknown
Marcy’s Mom Rural White M: Stay-at-home Mom, Verbal, Physical,
F: Unknown Cyber
Rachel’s Mom Rural White M: Unknown, Verbal, Physical,
F: Unknown Relational
Jack’s Mom Suburban White M: Medical Doctor, Verbal, Physical
F: Medical Doctor
Sadie’s Mom Urban White M: Stay-at-home Mom, Verbal, Cyber
F: Unknown
Becky’s Mom Suburban White M: University Administrator, Verbal,
F: Disabled Relational
Anna’s Mom Rural White M: Stay-at-home Mom, Verbal,
F: Sales Relational
Note. M = Mother; F = Father.

(see Figure 1). The guide avoided asking questions about parents’ emotions
or feelings. The guide also avoided finding causal relationships or explana-
tions of bullying. Instead, questions were designed around clarifying the
conditions of parent experiences (Koch, 1995), for example, “Thinking back
as you began noticing your daughter kicking the cat, can you describe what
was running through your mind at that time?”
Probing questions were used as follow-ups to capture deeper meaning. For
instance, “Can you explain or give me an example?” “Earlier, you mentioned
A, but I also hear you saying it is different than A. Can you explain what you
mean?” (Schaffer, 2006, p. 154). The question, “How do you interpret that,”
provided further understanding of the parental experience (Benner, Tanner, &
Chesla, 1996).
Brown et al. 501

Table 2. Participant Inclusion Criteria

(1) English as the parent’s primary language; (2) Parent had reported bullying to an
Indiana school official after the July, 2005 anti-bullying state law was enacted; (3) The
parent was not a public school employee in his or her child’s school district; (4) The
bullied child received only regular education services during the time of bullying;
and (5) Parental confirmation that bullying was consistent with the Olweus bullying
definition (2001) which states:
We say a student is being bullied when another student, or several students:

•• Say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or her or call him or her
mean and hurtful names
•• Completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or
leave him or her out of things on purpose
•• Hit, kick, push, shove around or lock him or her inside a room
•• Tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes and
try to make other students dislike him or her
••  And do other hurtful things like that.
When we talk about bullying, these things happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for
the student being bullied to defend him or herself. We also call it bullying when a
student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we don’t call it bullying
when teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not bullying when two
students of about the same strength or power argue or fight. (p. 6)

Procedure
First interviews took place in a private room at the parent’s local library or
home. These face-to-face interviews ranged from 50 minutes to 2.5 hours.
Second and sometimes third interviews were conducted via telephone to
clarify initial interview responses (Creswell, 2007). At the conclusion of the
interview, each parent was compensated with a US$20 gift card; three par-
ents refused compensation.
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. To uphold credibility,
each initial transcript was sent back to the participant for a member check
(Guba, 1981).

Data Analysis
Each participant was given a pseudonym. Transcripts were reviewed up to
four times by the lead researcher before coding. In addition, paradigm cases
(vibrant stories, unusually compelling, that draw the attention of the
502 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Semi-structured Interview Guide:

o  (Ice breaker) How many years have you been a parent?
o I’m interested in how you as a parent came to understand that your child was
being bullied and decided to report the concern to the school. Can you tell
me about that experience?
o Before reporting took place, what kinds of thoughts or actions occurred for
you as a parent knowing your child was being bullied?
o As this was occurring, were there ways you considered you might address the
situation?
o Would you walk me through what occurred from the first contact with a
school official regarding the bullying incident?
o  What did you anticipate would occur when you reported?
o What was this experience, and all that happened after it, like for you?
o What was your reporting like for your child?
o Were there things you noticed in terms of your relationships with your child’s
teachers, administrator or school in general as a result of the reporting?
o Throughout the time of your child being bullied, how did Indiana’s anti-bullying
laws play a part for you as a parent?
o Were there any resources that were available to you as you went through this
situation of reporting bullying?
o What did you learn from this experience?
o How has this experience affected your perception of your child’s school?
o What do you as a parent wish had happened when you reported the bullying?
o What would you tell a parent who was considering reporting to a school of-
ficial that their child is being bullied?
o Is there anything else you would like to share with me about what it is like
being a parent who reports that their child is bullied to a school official?

Figure 1. Semi-structured interview guide

researcher as investigator to return and examine them from new perspec-

tives) were identified and then reviewed with the same faculty members who
aided in the semi-structured interview guide. The interpretive phenomeno-
logical approach sought to understand participants’ experiences in a new
way, questioning the narrative, holding open the possibilities, and letting
phenomena emerge (Diekelmann & Ironside, 2005; Patton, 2002). To ana-
lyze specific themes within each stage, interpretation was used to examine
and question meaning that was contextually based for each parent. A com-
parison was made back to the parents’ transcripts to evaluate the interpretive
account (Packer & Addison, 1989). Further contact with parents was used for
additional clarification. Initially, four themes were categorized: parent moni-
toring, parents’ initial discovery, school officials responding to parents
reports, and parents’ understandings. However, after continued review of the
transcripts, a pattern emerged of a three-stage model.
Brown et al. 503

Results
The three-stage pattern that emerged was consistent for each of the parents:
the discovery, reporting, and aftermath related to reporting (see Figure 2).
Within each stage, characteristics emerged that became themes.

Figure 2. Stages of parental involvement and key themes

Stage One: Parents’ Discovery

Early warning signs. Parents reported noticing signs of behavioral changes.
Six parents reported noticing early warnings signs of bullying before youth
entered middle school; the remainder reported the bullying occurred after
entry into middle school. However, discovering that bullying was occurring
in elementary school and reporting it to a school official did not stop these
youth from experiencing middle-school bullying by the same perpetrators.
Parents discovered bullying in a variety of ways. For example, Chelsea’s
mother’s discovery occurred during her daughter’s adjustment to a public
school:

“She hadn’t told us that she was being bullied, but she started kicking
our cat. . . It was an outward behavior on her part because it was some-
thing that was wrong and she didn’t want to tell us directly that she was
being bullied or she didn’t know how to word or phrase it . . . Her cat
is a prize possession (laughter). It was definitely a red flag for us. As we
talked to her a little bit more about it, we found out what was going on.”

Tom’s parents, both involved in the K-12 public education system, discov-
ered bullying when inquiring about their son’s day at school.
504 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Tom’s Father: We were completely blind-sided . . . We would always ask

him like “How was school today?” “Good.” “Great.” Basically, we
just happened to ask that one extra quick follow-up question of “Why
was it good?” And then, it was kinda [like] the doors just opened. . .
I think we asked who did he play with today and he said—

Tom’s Mother: Nobody.

Tom’s Father: . . . and we were like, “Why?” “Well nobody wants to

play with me because” and we started finding out that it wasn’t just
one or two kids, but it was almost a mob mentality where these kids
were much more savvy than what we had realized and what the
school even had any awareness of.

Sandra’s mother, an elementary school aide, shared her understanding of

her 8th grade daughter being bullied. She described Sandra as being athletic,
playing 2 years on her middle-school’s basketball team. Sandra’s mother dis-
cussion of the history of her daughter’s victimization brought her to the
understanding that the victimization started early-on:

“Actually, the first time my daughter was being bullied she was being
called names. Lesbian and . . . it was on the basketball court; she
played basketball on a traveling team as well as the school team and
that started in sixth grade. She is now in the eighth grade . . . This has
been going on since preschool from little petty stuff that has escalated
to text messaging actually chasing her home threatening to beat her up
...”

The “petty stuff” that was not resolved or extinguished early-on has
grown into verbal, physical, and relational bullying. These discoveries of
youth victimization often led to parents first intervening at home.
Parental advice giving. After parents’ discovery of bullying, seven parents
responded to their youth by providing advice and strategies to better equip
their youth to “handle” the bullying situation. Chelsea’s mother explains:

“We first of all tried to encourage her to ignore it, to walk away, and
that didn’t seem to work. And we encouraged her to try to be nice to
her, and compliment her, and that didn’t work. So, short of punching
her [the bully] in the face (laughter), we didn’t want her to do that!
Sometimes you feel like you should just let them do that just to get it
resolved, but (pause) but those things didn’t work.”
Brown et al. 505

Chelsea’s mother explains her thoughts about her advice-giving being

ineffective:

“It’s kind of a tough pill to swallow that your child is being bullied
enough to affect school work and home life and emotional stability. We
thought it would go away. We thought if we gave her those kinds of
things to deal with it that she [bully] might stop. We had hopes that it
would stop, but it didn’t.”

Parents found the discovery of bullying difficult to accept. When they saw
their youth’s psycho-social responses increase, they realized that other steps
needed to be taken to provide safety. In this study, parents did not report
encouraging the use of physical violence to resolve the bullying. However, as
parents found their advice-giving to be ineffective, they resorted instead to
contacting school officials.
A shift toward school officials’ professional help. When parents observed their
youth’s outward responses becoming more severe as a result of continued
victimization, that is, not wanting to go to school or having patterned somatic
complaints, parents often shifted from advice giving to seeking the profes-
sional help of school officials.

Sadie’s Mother: She came home in tears, talking about how the kids
[were] being mean to her, making fun of her, calling her names. My
biggest thing is when my child goes to school she is to get an edu-
cation; nothing should stop that. So, I went into school and that is
exactly what I told them.

Just as Terrean-Miller (2006) found that a child’s emotional distress was a

determinant in female caregivers decision to report bullying, parents in this
study also were motivated to report when bullying interfered with education,
grades, school attendance, and participation in activities.

Stage Two: Reporting

Three emerging themes from parents became evident: parents not knowing
who to report these events to, school officials not wanting to intervene,
and one parent’s perception of a school official’s response to ending school
bullying.
To whom do parents report? When reporting bullying, parents were often
led by secretaries to school counselors. Parents reflected their disappointment
506 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

in not knowing if the school principal was ever made aware of their youth
being bullied.

Chelsea’s Mother: Well, I would hope so if they [counselors] received

reports of bullying, as part of their whole job, that they would make
a report to a higher administration, sure. I know the assistant prin-
cipal at the school was the discipline principal so it may have gone
to him but not any further. I don’t know what the line of command
is for bullying.

I: Did the counselor ever suggest to you that she did or would talk to
the principal?

Mother: No.

Chelsea’s mother’s experience was representative of parents not knowing

the “line of command” for reporting bullying. Furthermore, because parents
experienced bullying as a targeted act of aggression that was being repeated,
they were troubled when the school official in charge of discipline, such as
the vice principal, was not informed of the situation. Several parents said that
their reports never made it to school administrators.

Elizabeth’s mother: I talked with the vice principal who I know person-
ally who is going to be a principal next year, and she was not aware
of really anything. So I told her the whole scenario and (pause) she
said, “Why didn’t you just come to me?” I said, ‘Well when I called,
these were the channels they [office secretaries] told me I had to go
through.

School officials did not want to intervene. Parents expressed that school offi-
cials were unwilling to make a priority of their concerns. Three types of
experiences contributed to this perception. First, four parents in the study
noted that school officials did not call them back after reporting the bullying.
Becky’s mother demonstrates her experience:

“I am a little surprised that nothing happened because I thought it

would be a sort of magic word (voice gets louder) if I used the
B-word-- and didn’t just say, “She is having a hard time on the bus and
there are some mean” . . . I used the Bullying word in particular, con-
sciously, I remember saying, ‘Bullying’ because I thought she [the
Brown et al. 507

school counselor] would be like, “Oh my gosh, we better do something

about this.” And like I said, she did do all the appropriate things:
whipped out her notepad and took down all the information but then,
nothing . . . the loop never got closed with them telling us. We never
took her back so for the rest of the school year she didn’t have to go.”

Second, several parents reported that despite repeated attempts to work

with school officials, bullying episodes continued. For example, Tom’s
mother reported:

“The more we tried to get the school to address it, the more adult staff
seemed to consider Tom a problem or trouble. All this trouble followed
Tom. So instead of perceiving him as a victim who needed care and
protection, it was “why are you bothering me now, Tom?”

Rachel’s mother’s also exemplifies the experience:

“I contacted the principal. I had spoken with him on many occasions,

and he didn’t feel like it was appropriate to ever speak to these girls
and tell them to stop or speak to their parents . . . I know they do have
policy set, but I just felt like it was ongoing for months and they didn’t
deal with it.”

From the perspective of all but one parent, school officials were perceived
by parents as unable or unwilling to enforce their own school policy against
bullying and therefore, provide protection.
A parent’s experience of a complete response. One parent’s experience
served as a paradigm case, giving insights into what a complete response can
look like from a parent’s perspective. After the discovery of bullying that had
been taking place in a gym locker room for 1 month, Jack’s mother reached
out to certain members of her son’s new school community, including an
assigned parent mentor, teacher, and the principal.

So the next day, the principal interviewed each of the children

involved, each of the boys involved, including my son. He then made
them all come into his office together and, had Jack explain how it felt
to be picked on. He also had the boys express that they were sorry for
what they did and why. He also had each of the boys write the parents
[of the victims] a letter, saying that they were sorry for what had hap-
pened and that it would not happen again and all that. They reviewed
508 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

the locker room [policy] with the archdiocese . . . the P.E. teacher took
all the boys aside and went over what the protocols would be and
explained that if they see that kind of behavior again, they need to
report it to him right away. The principal contacted me after he had
gotten the information after he had chatted with the kids . . . He had
actually investigated it. He was very up front about (pause) with what
changes could not be made . . . what could and could not be done; it
had been looked at and addressed.

I: Were you made aware by the principal through any communication

he gave that the bullies’ parents were called?

Jack’s Mother: I believe so. Yeah.

This paradigm case of a successful intervention is comparatively different

to parents whose youth did not have successful interventions. The principal’s
response left Jack’s mother to reflect, “I felt that the principal had done the
right thing and acted so quickly on it, I did not need to go elsewhere.”

Stage Three: Aftermath

In the aftermath of reporting bullying, 10 of 11 parents in this study per-
ceived that school officials, whether by word or action, provided no further
support to prevent subsequent bullying. As Sandra’s mother was told by her
daughter’s middle school official, “Our hands are tied.” Therefore, parents
were left with the understanding that it was up to them to restore their youth’s
sense of safety at school.
Broken and abandoned. For all but one parent in this study, the repeated
result of the continuation of their youth being bullied led to realizations.
Rachel’s mother explains, “I do not think they took anything serious. I felt
insignificant, just like they didn’t want to be bothered and I just felt like,
that’s all I was; I was bothering them.”
Tom’s parents also experienced the let-down after advocating for over 2
years on their son’s behalf. Tom’s mother stated, “By the time it was over, we
felt like we were victimized as well. We felt helpless.” Tom’s mother feeling
“helpless” aligns with Humphrey and Crisp’s (2008) findings of Australian
parents of kindergarten youth who reported bullying. As parents believed that
school officials were no longer willing to intercede in providing an interven-
tion to address their youth’s victimization, a shift in understanding took place.
Anna’s mother explains:
Brown et al. 509

“I guess the analogy would be that somebody sees someone throwing

a rock, and so you call the police and say, “Hey, somebody is throwing
a rock,” but the police never show up. So the person is still there throw-
ing the rock. So you’ve done what you’re supposed to do, but no one
else has followed up. Well then, if you take the analogy further, what
happens? Eventually something is getting broken.”

The parents who realized that their youth would not receive protective
intervention from school officials had a new understanding that the problem
was not just about the bullies, but that the way in which school officials
responded was also the problem. The lack of a protective intervention by
school officials left parents deciding what to do next.
Evacuation. To provide protection, several parents in our study responded
to the failed attempts of school officials by removing their youth from the
bullying environment. These parent interventions included: removing a youth
off the school bus, a youth being home schooled, and three youth being
moved to other out-of-district schools. Rachel’s mother explains her
decision:

Rachel’s mother: I did take her to another school.

I: How did that work for your daughter?

Rachel’s mother: Well, she seemed to really flourish and do better. It’s
really hard to describe because Rachel is popular in school and
has a lot of friends. It’s not that I wanted the school to keep her as
a victim or just feel sorry for her because she needs to move on and
heal. But there are so many things they could have done to make her
feel better; to help her.

For Rachel’s mother’s experience, school officials missed opportunities to

provide necessary protections for her daughter. School officials, by failing to
demonstrate an effort to protect, inspired Rachel’s mother to find another
school for Rachel in a different school district.
Living hell. Although some youth were pulled out of schools by their par-
ents for protection, other parents lacked the financial or personal resources.
These parents observed that their bullied youth were left vulnerable and
unprotected from school bullies. Sandra’s mother interprets her daughter’s
development of somatic symptoms and school avoidance from her ongoing
stress of being bullied:
510 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

“It was a living hell for her. She’s been sick. She has been seen at the
hospital. It’s been horrible. It’s hell [mother begins to cry]. She wants
to be homeschooled and I can’t do it . . . I’ve asked for help at the
school, had asked for help from the counselors and it’s like, they can
only do so much. . . My child has been in and out of the hospital . . .
Nerves . . . Now she has been on medication trying to figure out what
was wrong. Now we’ve decided that, while we figured out through
doctors, which I have the records right here, her medical bills and
medical diagnoses they can’t find anything wrong except to refer back
to the school. The stress that the school has caused . . . Now she doesn’t
even want to go to school. She prays for snow days. She prays for the
bus to break down, anything to keep out of school. She prays for two-
hour delays. She can’t wait for this year to get over. She loves to learn,
but its hell at school and it’s affecting her in every way.”

The fear of attending a single school day due to being bullied puts Sandra
at risk for health problems. The repeated trauma and fear of further victimiza-
tion has also put Sandra at risk of dropping out of school. Three parents’
emotional sobbing during the interviews caught each of these parents, includ-
ing Sandra’s mother, by surprise. In one instance, as we stopped an interview
to look for tissues, Rachel’s mother stated, “I’m sorry. I thought--I thought I
was over this.” Afterward, Rachel’s mother would not return follow-up phone
calls or emails to participate in further interviews.

Discussion
The results of youth being bullied are not only troubling to youth but parents
as well (Mishna, 2004). This study further advances our understanding of
what middle-school parents face when reporting their youth’s bullying vic-
timization to their youth’s school officials. Data collected from these par-
ents suggests a pattern of a three-staged experience. During the discovery
stage, parents made efforts to help their youth from home before reporting
victimization to the school. Parents found that advice-giving failed to
resolve the bullying. Similar to what has previously been reported (Terrean-
Miller, 2006), parents’ monitoring of their youth’s behavioral changes as a
result of being bullied, caused them to involve school officials. What is
particularly troubling from these interviews is that parents who were aware
of their youth being bullied in elementary school often saw a re-emergence
from the same bullies again in middle school.
Brown et al. 511

In the reporting stage, parents who did not experience school officials’
intervention as helpful reported several common features. First, parents were
unsure to whom the bully-victimization should be reported to. Parents were
often directed by a school secretary to speak to a counselor or student service
representative. However, the previously mentioned school personnel are not
traditionally associated with school discipline (Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, &
Marshall, 2001). Because bullying by definition is an intentionally targeted,
aggressive, and repeated act of harm-doing (Aalsma & Brown, 2008), parents
indicated it would be helpful for school principals to be fully engaged in the
intervention, which includes discipline, as well as counseling.
Ten of 11 parents in this study were told by their youth’s school officials
that in essence, “Our hands are tied.” From these parents’ perspective, school
officials were unwilling to call the bullies’ parents regarding their youth’s
behavior, allowing the abuse to continue. This lack of intervention was sur-
prising to parents in this study who reviewed their youth’s student handbook.
As one parent read aloud, one of the first consequences for bullying was to
“notify parents.” From this finding, the symbolism of having a school policy
in writing may not transfer to the action of parental notification. The response
of school officials notifying parents of bullying or victimization may not be a
preferable practice (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Therefore, it is recommended
that future research examine what limits school officials from following
school procedures in addressing a full intervention.
In the aftermath stage, as one parent stated after 2.5 years of their son’s
victimization, “By the time it was over, we felt like we were victimized as
well. We felt helpless.” Four parents in this study, without solicitation,
reported that their youth had received counseling because of the bullying,
whereas an additional parent was making trips to the hospital for their youth’s
“nerves.” This prolonged exposure to victimization reflects a concern for life
enduring psychosocial outcomes (Fekkes et al., 2006; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996). It also suggests that parents experience a degree of trauma from the
ineffective responses of school officials.
As stated within the introduction, bullying is often understood within a
broader social ecological context (Doll et al., 2004; Henderson & Hymel,
2003; Limber, 2004; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003; Swearer et al., 2010). This
perspective is helpful since it acknowledges that intervention alters behav-
ioral responses, which affects the broader social framework. It is clear within
the results of this study that parents were at times forced into changing the
specific social context of their child (i.e., school) to better meet their devel-
opmental needs. This transition not only affected the youth but the parents
and other family members as well. Thus, the ramifications of bullying on the
512 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

social ecological contexts (e.g. individual, family, school, and community)

are quite broad.
Parents who had the resources pulled their youth from his or her middle
school. Although this may provide the potential of safety and a new beginning
for bullied youth, it also can create barriers to special school opportunities like
band, honors courses, or sports. There can be social costs for these youth hav-
ing to maintain or build a new social peer group. The loss of opportunities and
peer group issues upon entering a new middle school or home school situation
can have its own psycho-social risks.
A developmental task of adolescence is to separate from their parents and
to become increasingly independent (Meeus, Iedema, Maassen, & Engels,
2005). Hence, some parents felt a lack of control when faced with a crisis
outside of the family system. Thus, parents described a tension between
wanting their child to independently solve this crisis and stepping in to aid in
solving this crisis. Similar to the child disability literature (Nachshen &
Minnes, 2005), some parents became empowered to effect change within
their child’s life (Shulz, Israel, Zimmerman, & Checkoway, 1995). Parents
within this study identified the importance of independence as well as the
tension of becoming “empowered” to effect change by reporting for their
child’s well-being.
A single paradigm case of a successful intervention addressed how
school officials can provide a full intervention. First, the principal swiftly
investigated the report of bullying. Second, the principal intervened on
multiple levels: victim safety, bullies held responsible for their behaviors,
and the bullies’ parents were notified. Third, the victim’s parent was noti-
fied by the principal regarding the response. This basic yet often overlooked
set of protocols may be useful for school officials to address reports of
school bullying. The final result for the parent meant her son’s bullying was
being taken seriously, and the actions taken within the principal’s interven-
tion had ended the bullying.
Although this research is not a policy critique or analysis, contextually, the
parents in this study lived in a state that has had an anti-bullying law in place
since 2005. This context of parents’ reporting to school officials with a state
law in place puts into question what protections such a law may provide par-
ents and youth. These responses by school officials call into question at what
level school officials believe they may be held accountable for a minimal
response to bullying complaints.
Recommendations from these parents’ experience suggest that they are
better served by first reporting bullying to the principal. Parents must make
sure that their youth is not penalized by actions taken by school officials (e.g.,
Brown et al. 513

moving the victim to a different locker or class instead of the bully). If par-
ents experience an ineffective intervention, they can take additional steps,
such as reporting the concern to the superintendent. If that fails to bring
results, parents do have the right to address this issue publicly at a school
board meeting. These additional steps can be valuable for parents to leverage
school officials’ effective response.

Limitations
Although this is one of the few studies to explore parental experiences in
reporting bullying to school officials, there are limitations that warrant dis-
cussion. First, there was a limited representation of racial, gender, and ethnic
diversity. Therefore, we do not understand minority parents’ responses to
their youth’s bullying victimization. Further, because all but one participant
was female, there must be further investigation in how fathers understand
their youth’s bullying. In addition, the current sample does not represent the
full spectrum of interactions of parents with school officials. For example, it
may be that parents’ negative experiences in communicating with school
officials were more likely to volunteer for a research study exploring these
experiences. However, the current research study looked in-depth at parent
experiences; this allowed for a depth of understanding needed for future
research in this emerging area of study.

Conclusion
Our data suggest that all but one parent believed their child’s victimization
would continue even though they followed through in reporting bullying to
their youth’s school officials. In the search for best practices, this data sug-
gests it can be helpful to inform parents with whom to start the reporting
process. Parents who experienced someone other than a school principal all
reported poor intervention outcomes that allowed the bullying to continue.
This study further suggests that from a parent’s perspective, school officials
must go beyond the initial report and make a complete investigation that
includes reporting back to parents what will be done to provide safety.
Therefore, school officials can make this process easier for parents by
clarifying their specific roles and developing detailed reporting procedures
or protocols that are made public. School officials have a unique opportu-
nity to demonstrate to parents how they will intercede in a swift and certain
way. The steps in which school officials intercede to stop bullies, including
notifying the bully and victim’s parents, may aid in communicating to par-
ents and youth that the situation is being taken seriously.
514 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Future studies should examine the effect ongoing bullying has on parental
psycho-social functioning and secondary trauma levels. Parents in this study,
who were able to move their youth to a different school, may have been left
with a secondary trauma, whereas parents who were left to continue watching
their youth be victimized at school were living in a state of continued harassed
unrest.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Aalsma, M., & Brown, J. (2008). What is bullying? Journal of Adolescent Health,
43, 101-102.
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern
for both families and schools. [Article]. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1),
35-54.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. V. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neigh-
borhood, family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benner, P. E., Tanner, C. A., & Chesla, C. A. (1996). Expertise in nursing practice:
Caring, clinical judgment, and ethics. New York, NY: Springer.
Bond, L., Carlin, J., Thomas, K., Rubin, G., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause
emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical
Journal, 323, 480.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer
victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff.
School Psychology Review, 36, 361-382.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2004). Principals’ percep-
tions and practices of school bullying prevention activities. Health Education &
Behavior, 31, 372-387.
Brown et al. 515

Diekelmann, N., & Ironside, P. M. (2005). Hermeneutics. In J. Fitzpatrick & M. Wallace

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of nursing research (2nd ed., pp. 243-245). New York, NY:
Springer.
Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Classroom ecologies that support or discour-
age bullying. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools:
A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 161-183).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Dornfeld-Januzzi, J. (2006). Adult perceptions of bullying by boys and girls in middle
school (PhD dissertation). Fordham University, NY.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Pereira, B.,
& Smith, P. K. (2003). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data
from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71-83.
Espelage, D., & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization:
What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review,
32, 365-383.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. M., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.
(2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective
cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms.
Pediatrics, 117, 1568-1574.
Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. (2001). Future school administrators’
perceptions of the school counselor’s role. Counselor Education & Supervision,
41(2), 89.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Social science that matters. Foresight Europe, 2, 38-42.
Garrett, K. (2001). Reducing school-based bullying. Journal of Social Work, 12(1),
74-90.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic
problems: A meta analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059-1065.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.
Henderson, N., & Hymel, S. (2003). Peer response to bullying conflict: Early adoles-
cent strategies and goals. Paper presented at the Ecological and Developmental
Perspectives on Bullying and victimization, Tampa Bay, FL. Abstract Retrieved
from http://manila.unl.edu.gems/brnet/peer.pdf
Holt, M. K., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concor-
dance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying
and peer victimization. [Article]. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 42-63. doi:
10.1080/15388220802067813
Humphrey, G., & Crisp, B. (2008). Bullying affects us too: Parental responses to
bullying at kindergarten. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 45-49.
516 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of
victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer
harassment in schools: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105-124).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Koch, T. (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of
Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 827-836.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Manifestations and
relations to school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34,
267-283.
Kvarme, L. G., Helseth, S., & Saeternen, B. (2010). School children’s experience of
being bullied and how they envisage their dream day. Scandinavian Journal of
Caring Science, 24, 791-798.
Leff, S. S. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Considerations and
future directions. School Psychological Review, 36, 406-412.
Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in
American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on preven-
tion and intervention (pp. 351-363). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in
schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 445-455.
MacLeod, I. R. (2007). A study of administrative policy responses to bullying in
Illinois secondary schools (PhD dissertation). Loyola University, Chicago.
Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Maassen, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Separation–individuation
revisited: on the interplay of parent–adolescent relations, identity and emotional
adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 28(1), 89-106. doi: 10.1016/j.
adolescence.2004.07.003
Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives.
Children and Schools, 26, 234-247.
Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and
responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals.
Victims and Offenders, 1, 255-288.
Nachshen, J. S., & Minnes, P. (2005). Empowerment in parents of school-aged
children with and without developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 889-904.
Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W. J., Simmons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.
Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and interventions.
American Psychological Society, 4, 196-200.
Brown et al. 517

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues.
In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Olweus, D. (2003). A profile in bullying. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12-17.
Packer, M. J., & Addison, R. B. (1989). Introduction. In M. J. Packer & R. B. Addison
(Eds.), Hermeneutic investigation in psychology (pp. 13-36). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rodkin, P., & Hodges, E. V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four
questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Pysychology Review,
32, 384-400.
Schaffer, C. F. (2006). Ordinary language interview. In D. Yanow & P. Swartz-Shea
(Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpre-
tive turn (pp. 472). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine, J. W. (1999). Cre-
ating professional communities in schools through organizational learning:
An evaluation of school improvement process. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35(1), 130-160.
Shulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zimmerman, M. A., & Checkoway, B. N. (1995).
Empowerment as a multi-level construct: Perceived control at the individual,
organizational, and community levels. Health Education Research: Theory
and Practice, 10, 309-327.
Smythe, E., Ironside, P. M., Sims, S., Swenson, M., & Spence, D. G. (2008). Doing
Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 45, 1389-1397.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can
be done about school bullying? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47. doi:
10.3102/0013189x09357622
Terrean-Miller, T. (2006). An examination of factors that influence maternal care-
givers decisions to intervene in school bullying situations (Ph.D. dissertation).
University of South Dakota, South Dakota.
Turner, F. (1996). Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches
(4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link between parents’
perceptions of the school and their responses to school bullying: Variation
by child characteristics and the forms of victimization. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 103, 324-335. doi: 10.1037/a0022748
White, S. (2004). A psychodynamic perspective of workplace bullying: Containment,
boundaries and a futile search for recognition. [Article]. British Journal of Guid-
ance & Counselling, 32, 269-280. doi: 10.1080/03069880410001723512
518 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(3)

Bios
James R. Brown, PhD, MSW, LCSW. Before earning a PhD in Social Work from
Indiana University, James provided 13 years of service to youth and families as a
school social worker. His research attention focuses on bullying, bullying policy, and
mental health treatment with adjudicated youth. James currently serves as an
Assistant Professor of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.

Matthew C. Aalsma, PhD is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology.

Trained as a child psychologist, Dr. Aalsma focuses on research with vulnerable
populations, including youth in the mental health and juvenile justice systems.

Mary A. Ott, MD, MA is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics. Dr. Ott is a pediatri-

cian and adolescent medicine specialist whose research focuses on sexual health and
ethics issues involving adolescents in research on sensitive topics.