On Bullying 1st Edition Helen Cowie
On Bullying 1st Edition Helen Cowie
com
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-perspectives-
on-bullying-1st-edition-helen-cowie/
https://ebookultra.com/download/bullying-among-university-students-
cross-national-perspectives-1st-edition-helen-cowie/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/conquering-nature-in-spain-and-its-
empire-1750-1850-1st-edition-helen-cowie/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/firearms-global-perspectives-on-
consequences-crime-and-control-1st-edition-helen-poole/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-perspectives-on-epistemic-
closure-1st-edition-duncan-pritchard/
ebookultra.com
New Perspectives on Microsoft PowerPoint 2010
Comprehensive New Perspectives Course Technology Paperback
1st Edition S. Scott Zimmerman
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-perspectives-on-microsoft-
powerpoint-2010-comprehensive-new-perspectives-course-technology-
paperback-1st-edition-s-scott-zimmerman/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-perspectives-on-historical-latin-
syntax-1st-edition-philip-baldi/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/concerning-peace-new-perspectives-on-
utopia-1st-edition-kai-gregor/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-interdisciplinary-perspectives-on-
and-beyond-autonomy-1st-edition-oliver-davis/
ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/new-perspectives-on-microsoft-
word-2010-1st-edition-s-scott-zimmerman/
ebookultra.com
New Perspectives on Bullying 1st Edition Helen Cowie
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Helen Cowie, Dawn Jennifer
ISBN(s): 9780335222445, 0335222447
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.05 MB
Year: 2008
Language: english
New Perspectives on Bullying
• What is bullying?
• What can we learn from research findings?
• What are the risk factors for bullying or being bullied?
This book provides a valuable resource for anyone responsible for the emotional health
NEW PERSPECTIVES
ON BULLYING
and well-being of children and young people. The authors focus on the importance
of fostering positive relationships in the school community as a whole, so that young
people and adults feel empowered to challenge bullying when they encounter it and
protect those involved.
Using case studies of real experiences, innovative practice, key research findings
and perspectives from children and young people themselves, the authors provide
perceptive insights into the positive ways of relating to others that are essential if we
are to address the issue of bullying successfully.
The material outlined in the book is directly linked to the new agenda for change in
meeting the needs of the child, empowering children to be consulted and to take
responsibility for issues that affect them. It explores a range of effective interventions
that can counteract bullying - including restorative approaches; peer mediation;
narrative approaches; and cyber support.
• Chapter overviews
• Examples of effective practice
• Summaries of key research findings
• Children’s views and experiences
• Learning points at the end of each chapter
• List of related organisations, websites and
Helen Cowie is Research Professor and Director of the UK Observatory at the University
of Surrey.
NEW PERSPECTIVES
ON BULLYING
NEW PERSPECTIVES
ON BULLYING
email: [email protected]
world wide web: www.openup.co.uk
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of
criticism and review, no part of this publication may reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency
Limited. Details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained
from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd of Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street,
London, EC1N 8TS.
Fictitious names of companies, products, people, characters and/or data that may be
used herein (in case studies or in examples) are not intended to represent any real
individual, company, product or event.
To Tony (DJ)
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements IX
List of figures X
List of tables XI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions to the
writing of this book: Soledad Andrès, Tony Daly, Milagros Escobar Espejo, Stefania
Ferrazzuolo, Sonia Sharp, Julie Shaughnessy, Cathy Warren, Siân Williams and World
Health Organization.
We would like to thank Taylor and Francis (UK) Journals (http:www.informa-
world.com) for permission to reproduce Figures 3 and 4 from Cowie, H. and Sharp, S.
(1992) ‘Students themselves tackle the problem of school bullying’, Pastoral Care in
Education, 10(4): 31–37 as Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
Tables
Figures
Chapter overview
Teachers have a reasonable knowledge about the nature of school bullying, particu-
larly physical forms. However, even though they recognize it as an issue, they often
underestimate the seriousness of relational bullying and its negative impact on the
victim. Furthermore, many teachers lack the knowledge, skills and confidence with
which to recognize and challenge bullying.
This chapter focuses on the essential aspects of school bullying that experienced
teachers and teachers in training will need to be aware of in order to address the issue.
We identify the different forms that bullying takes–physical, verbal, relational and
cyber–and highlight some individual differences that might be used as a reason for
bullying, such as, race, religion or culture, disability, sexual orientation and gender.
We explore participant roles in school bullying including bullies and their assistants,
victims and their defenders, bully–victims and bystanders. We examine the risk
factors for bullying, drawing upon examples identified by research on school bullying
and youth offending and highlight protective factors that might help to safeguard
children and young people from involvement in bullying.
Issues of definition
While there has been a growing worldwide interest in school bullying among
practitioners, researchers, and parents and carers over the past 25 years, there is
currently no consensus regarding its definition, with variations widespread in the
literature and numerous discussion and review papers published on the subject (e.g.
Arora 1996; Naylor et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2002; Underwood et al. 2001). Neverthe-
less, there is general agreement regarding the key characteristics that constitute
bullying. These include the deliberate intention to harm another individual; repeti-
tion of the bullying behaviour over time; and an imbalance of power, such that the
victim has difficulty defending him- or herself effectively (e.g. Olweus 1991; Smith
and Morita 1999). Not all researchers are in agreement with these key criteria,
however. For example, a minority believe that an aggressive behaviour does not have
to be repeated over time to be considered bullying (e.g. Stephenson and Smith 1989).
A commonly used definition for research purposes is one proposed by Olweus
(1994). He defines school bullying as a subset of aggressive behaviour with certain
specific characteristics such that ‘a person is being bullied or victimized when he or
she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or
more other students’ (Olweus 1994: 1173). He further states that ‘there is a good deal
of bullying without violence (e.g. bullying by words, gestures, intentional exclusion
from the group) and, likewise,… there is a good deal of violence that cannot be
characterized as bullying (e.g. an occasional fight in the playground)’ (Olweus 1999:
12). There appears to be general agreement that the terms ‘bullying’ and ‘violence’
overlap, and that the accepted understanding of bullying is that it is a particularly
destructive form of aggression (Slee 2003).
A review of the literature suggests that teachers and pupils hold much broader
definitions of bullying than those used by researchers, particularly younger children
(e.g. Guerin and Hennessy 2002; Smith et al.1999). For example, in a questionnaire
survey of 225 teachers and 1820 secondary school pupils, which sought to investigate
definitions of bullying, Naylor et al. (2006) found that only 18 per cent of teachers
and 8 per cent of pupils included repetition of bullying behaviour in their responses.
Furthermore, only 25 per cent of teachers and 4 per cent of pupils included intention
to harm, and while nearly three-quarters of teachers invoked the imbalance of power
criterion in their definitions, only 40 per cent of pupils did so.
Indeed, research findings suggest an age trend in children’s definitions of bullying
with changes in how they define the term as they get older (Naylor et al. 2006; Smith et
al. 1999; Smith et al. 2002). The results of a study that explored the definitions of 166
primary schoolchildren, with a modal age of 12, suggested that repetition and intention
might not be the most important defining characteristics of bullying (Guerin and
Hennessy 2002). Semi-structured interviews revealed that the majority of pupils
believed that intent was not necessary for a particular behaviour to be defined as
bullying. In terms of repetition, nearly half of all participants perceived that behaviours
occurring once or twice constituted bullying; moreover, just over half reported that
behaviours did not have to be repeated over time to be considered bullying. Indeed,
using a pictorial questionnaire with 6- and -7-year-olds, Smith and Levan (1995) found
that children’s definitions of bullying included occasional or one-off episodes of
fighting and aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, in an interview study of 159 partici-
pants ranging in age from 5 to 29, younger children were significantly less likely to
mention the imbalance of power criterion (Smith et al. 1999). Whereas 12 per cent of 9-
to -10-year-olds mentioned an imbalance of power when defining bullying, 30 per cent
of 15 to 16-year-olds mentioned this characteristic.
Early research into bullying focused on aggressive physical behaviour in boys, in part
because physical aggression is more easily observable and of a form that is stereotypi-
cally male (Underwood et al. 2001). In the 1980s and 1990s, however, research
recognized other forms of bullying including verbal and psychological (e.g., Far-
rington 1993). Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukianen (1992) distinguished between
direct physical, direct verbal and indirect aggression. Direct physical aggression
includes such behaviours as pushing, hitting, punching or kicking. Direct verbal
aggression may take the form of yelling abuse at another, name-calling, using
insulting expressions or making verbal threats. Indirect aggression, sometimes referred
to as social aggression (Cairns et al. 1989) or relational aggression (Crick and
Grotpeter 1995), as the term implies, uses less direct forms of aggressive behaviour
such as spreading malicious rumours about another, excluding a person from the
group, or disclosing another’s secrets to a third person (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and
Österman 1992). Given that these terms are used inter-changeably in the literature,
we will do the same in this book.
Research with teachers suggests that relational bullying is perceived as less
severe than other forms of bullying (Hazler et al. 2001). For example, in a study to
compare preservice teachers’ responses to physical, verbal and relational bullying
scenarios, participants rated relational bullying as less serious than other forms of
bullying (Bauman and Del Rio 2006). Furthermore, they expressed the least empathy
for victims of relational bullying, were least likely to intervene in incidences of
relational bullying, and proposed the least severe actions towards bullies involved in
relational bullying than those engaged in physical or verbal forms (Bauman and Del
Rio 2006).
This finding is consistent with the results of research with inservice teachers. In
a recent study of primary, middle and high school teachers in Australia, Ellis and
Shute (2007) found that physical bullying (spitting on someone) was rated as
significantly more serious than verbal bullying (name-calling), which, in turn, was
rated as significantly more serious than relational bullying (giving dirty looks). For
incidents which teachers rated as less serious (giving dirty looks), relatively high
numbers of teachers considered it best to let students sort it out for themselves,
perceiving it as too minor to bother with and more influenced by whether they had
time to deal with it. Gender differences were also apparent, with male teachers more
likely to ignore dirty looks and rating name-calling as less serious than female
teachers did. In order that harm to pupils can be reduced, the authors concluded that
it is important that information about the detrimental effects of all types of bullying
are disseminated to teachers and policy makers. To this end, Box 1.1 presents a
summary of the negative consequences of bullying to pupils. (For further discussion,
see Chapter 3.)
Nevertheless, previous research with pre-, infant, junior and secondary school
teachers suggested that the majority felt a responsibility to prevent bullying in the
classroom and in the playground (Boulton 1997). However, regardless of the length of
service, participants expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to deal with
bullying and 87 per cent said that they wanted more training (Boulton 1997). Indeed,
research with trainee teachers found that the majority of participants were in favour
of teacher training that incorporated activities on how to prevent bullying (Nicolaides
et al. 2002).
Similarly, research suggests that children and young people consider relational
aggression as less severe than other forms of bullying. An American study that
investigated elementary children’s moral reasoning about physical and relational
aggression found that fourth and fifth graders tended to rate physical aggression (e.g.
hitting a peer) as more wrong and harmful than relational aggression (e.g. excluding
a peer from one’s group of friends) (Murray-Close et al. 2006). In addition, girls
tended to judge aggression in general as more wrong than boys did, and were more
likely to believe that relational behaviours were harmful for the victim. Indeed,
interviews with children and young people ranging in age from 8 to 16 revealed that
while physical aspects of behaviour entered definitions of bullying at all ages, the
youngest pupils aged 5 to 6 were less likely to define bullying in terms of verbal or
indirect bullying behaviour (Smith et al. 1999). Examples of verbal bullying became
more frequent in the later primary years, and examples of indirect bullying became
more frequent at secondary school age.
To complicate matters even further, indirect aggression has been divided into
subtypes. There has been much research into reactive (e.g. an angry or defensive
response to provocation) and proactive aggression (e.g. to obtain a desired goal)
(Crick and Dodge 1996; Salmivalli and Nieminen 2002). Most research has focused on
reactive forms of bullying and aggression whereby aggressive behaviours under
investigation are a response to provocation employed to express anger and cause
harm (Underwood et al. 2001). On the other hand, as has been previously suggested,
aggression might be employed for more proactive reasons, for example, ‘to attain
status with particular peers or for the entertainment value of manipulating others’
relationships or self-esteem’ (Underwood et al. 2001: 253). Research in Australia,
which supports this possibility, has found that adolescent girls mention alleviating
boredom, creating excitement and managing peer relationships as major motivations
for using indirect aggressive behaviours (Owens et al. 2000). Box 1.2 presents an
example of a recent study that explored children’s pictorial and narrative representa-
tions of their bullying experiences that identified sadistic aspects of bullying not
currently captured in the existing subtypes of aggression. (See more on this study in
Chapter 7.)
Bosacki et al. (2006) carried out an interview study in Canada with 82 children
aged 8 to 12 that required participants to draw and narrate stories of ‘someone
being bullied’. In response to open-ended questions about the characters
portrayed in the children’s drawings, comments on bullies’ motives for bullying
concur with previously identified concepts of instrumental and reactive aggres-
sion (Crick and Dodge 1996; Salmivalli and Nieminen 2002). Other psychologi-
cal motives that the children ascribed to the bully, however, were not consistent
with existing subtypes of bullying and aggression; that is children mentioned
sadistic motives, such as wanting to make the victim sad (70 per cent). Indeed,
the bully was portrayed as smiling in 78 per cent of children’s drawings of a
bullying situation and when asked what the bully in their drawing might be
feeling, 50 per cent of participants mentioned positive feelings, such as happy
or glad. In addition, the majority of drawings (93 per cent) depicted only two
participants; that is the bully and the victim, suggesting that children did not
share adult researchers’ claims that bullying is a social process that extends
beyond the bully/victim dyad (Pepler et al. 1999; Salmivalli 2001a). The
drawings did reflect, however, the notion of a power imbalance, with the
majority of bullies portrayed as larger than the victims were. This finding
contrasts with the results of a questionnaire study carried out by Naylor et al.
(2006) which suggested that 13 to 14-year-old pupils were more likely than 11
to 12-year-old pupils to refer to an imbalance of power (Naylor et al. 2006).
and Smith 1993). Research conducted in 2006, in which 2132 pupils aged 9 to 14
participated, confirms that bullying is an issue for a substantial number of children
and young people (Shaughnessy and Jennifer 2007). The results of this study also
inform our understanding of the nature of school bullying in terms of common types
of bullying behaviour, who engages in bullying others and the locations where
bullying occurs (see Box 1.3).
likely than boys were to be bullied in the dining room; boys were more likely
than girls to experience bullying in a PE class or the changing rooms/showers.
While such self-report surveys enlighten us with regard to the incidence and nature of
bullying in schools, some researchers have pointed out that the phenomenon cannot
be understood without taking into account the social situation in which it takes place
(O’Connell et al. 1999; Salmivalli 2001a). Lagerspetz et al. (1982) distinguished two
important features of bullying, that is, it is collective in nature and it is based on
social relationships in the group. Furthermore, research suggests that certain dimen-
sions of the social group context (negative affect, high aversive behaviour, high
activity level, low group cohesion, competitiveness) are related to the occurrence of
aggressive behaviours among individual children in the group (DeRosier et al. 1994).
The social group context also has an effect on how children react to aggression
between members of the group, for example, siding with the victim, which, in turn,
influences the group atmosphere following the aggressive episode. Thus, some
researchers have developed peer nomination and evaluation techniques to investigate
participant roles in the bullying process (e.g. Björkqvist and Österman 1998;
Salmivalli et al. 1996). The results of studies using such techniques suggest that peers
play various roles in the bullying episode from providing an audience to becoming
actively involved in the interaction between the bully and the victim (O’Connell et
al. 1999). For example, the Participant Role Scale developed by Salmivalli et al. (1996)
involved children evaluating how well each child in their class, including themselves,
fits 50 behavioural descriptions of bullying situations (e.g. starts bullying, doesn’t do
anything) from which the Participant Roles were then derived. Pupils were also
requested to identify peers in their class who were being bullied by others (Salmivalli
et al. 1996).
In addition to the roles that one might expect to find, that is, Bullies and Victims
as implicitly defined in the Olweus (1991) definition cited above, and those not
involved, Salmivalli et al.’s (1996) research has distinguished a further four participant
roles. Assistants actively participate in the bullying (e.g. through physically restraining
a victim) and Reinforcers may provide positive feedback to a bully by shouting
encouragement. Although Outsiders may not be directly involved (i.e. they are
unaware of the incident), they may contribute indirectly to a bullying situation
merely through silent approval or, possibly unwittingly, by not taking a stance (overt
or otherwise) against a bully. Salmivalli (1999) suggests that some of those involved in
bullying (e.g. Outsiders), although aware of their passive role and knowing that
bullying often requires the intervention of others, may lack the necessary skills to
intervene actively. Finally, and as the label suggests, Defenders actively defend victims
by intervening in the bullying process through, for example, telling an adult or
comforting the victim.
A similar procedure has been employed in the UK. Sutton and Smith (1999)
used a shortened adaptation of the Participant Role Scale (Salmivalli et al. 1996) with
193 7 to 11-year-olds in England. They found that a participant role could be assigned
to 84.5 per cent of the total sample, with 18.1 per cent victims, 14.0 per cent bullies,
5.7 per cent reinforcers, 7.3 per cent assistants, 27.5 per cent defenders, 11.9 per cent
outsiders, and 15.5 per cent with no role. In addition, they found that 5.7 per cent of
victims had a secondary role of bully, and 8.0 per cent of bullies had a secondary role
of victim. Sometimes referred to as provocative or aggressive victims, these individu-
als display characteristics of both bullies and victims (Griffin and Gross 2004; Smith
2004). The role that a bully–victim takes is context-dependent, such that they may
bully in situations where they are in a position of power, whereas in another situation
they may be the victim. Moreover, these roles are not necessarily stable and static
over time (Ferrazzuolo 2004). For example, a follow-up study designed to compare
friendships, behavioural characteristics, victimization experiences and coping strate-
gies of 406 pupils aged 13 to 16 provided information on participant role movement
(Smith et al. 2004). Participants were followed up from an earlier study, which
enabled the classification of victim profiles on two occasions, two years apart. The
classification revealed that of the 204 victims participating in the first study, 58 could
be classified as continuing victims, and 146 as escaped victims. Of the 209 non-
victims participating in the first study, 175 had never been bullied over the previous
two years (non-victims); whereas 34 were currently being bullied (new victims) (the
remaining 7 were classified as in-between status and dropped from the analysis). Box
1.4 presents the results of a study which explored children’s understanding of the
social group context within which school bullying takes place, the results of which
suggest that such adult perceptions of participant roles are not that clear-cut.
and direct verbal bullying, such as blackmail, teasing, threatening, swearing and
shouting. On the other hand, female participants highlighted the leader’s direct
verbal bullying, such as threatening others, picking on individuals who were
perceived to be different, swearing and using rude words, watching and
laughing, and indirect bullying, such as ignoring others and social exclusion.
With regard to the assistant character, participants perceived that he or she
played a supportive role in terms of offering assistance and encouragement, and
providing support by ‘tagging along’. In terms of specific bullying behaviours
perpetrated by the assistant character, male participants highlighted behaviours
such as restraining the victim and threatening others, while female participants
focused on making fun of the victim. Furthermore, participants described
behaviours such as feeling forced to bully others, obeying the leader and taking
the blame for the bullying that clearly suggested that this character experienced
the leader’s behaviour as dominating and oppressive. Observing that the
assistant participated in bullying others out of fear of the leader, specifically a
fear of being bullied by him or her, clearly indicated that participants perceived
that the assistant experienced the leader’s behaviour as threatening and intimi-
dating. In representing the assistant character as dominated by and fearful of
the leader, participants’ responses in this study extend researchers’ knowledge
about the nature of the attachments among bullies and what induces assistants
to join in, in a primary school-aged sample.
In terms of the follower character, female participants described behaviours
that evidently reinforce bullying, such as tagging along, watching, laughing,
smiling, smirking and sticking up for the bully. On the other hand, male
participants perceived that the follower character experienced the leader’s
behaviour as the assistant character did, that is, dominating and intimidating
through, for example, being forced to take part, obeying the leader and taking
the blame. The findings further revealed that participants perceived that the
follower character was not much involved in bullying, lending support to the
adult notion of a passive bully, that is, a child who participates in bullying
others but who does not usually take the initiative (Olweus 1994). The
perception that the follower or reinforcer character was minimally involved
might be explained in terms of participants not realizing that by exhibiting
behaviours such as laughing and watching, followers provide an audience for
the bully, which reinforces the bully’s behaviour and signals approval of the
bullying (O’Connell et al. 1999; Pepler et al. 1999; Salmivalli et al. 1996).
That a gender difference was apparent in the behavioural descriptions for each of the
bully characters in the hypothetical story provides evidence from the child’s perspec-
tive that within the social world of males bullying has a different meaning and
purpose compared with that of females (Salmivalli et al. 1998). For males, it might be
a question of power, domination and showing off, whereas for females it might have
more to do with social relationships and social situations (Salmivalli et al. 1998). That
male participants drew attention to direct physical and direct verbal behaviours, and
that female participants focused on direct verbal and indirect behaviours, reflects
gender differences in the use of different types of bullying identified by previous
research. Not only do the results of this study provide evidence for primary
schoolchildren’s understanding of participant roles in bullying episodes, but also they
draw attention to the nature of the bullying behaviour that occurs among members
of the bully group. (See Box 8.1 for further details about this study.)
Cyber bullying
young females than young males reported receiving nasty or threatening emails or
text messages (Noret and Rivers 2006). The data also highlighted an increase in the
receipt of such messages in young females, with incidence rising from nearly
15 per cent in 2002 to just over 21 per cent in 2005. This concurs with the findings of
a survey of over 1500 9 to 19-year-olds which found that older children were more
likely to experience online bullying, with 11 per cent of 9 to 11-year-olds, 35 per cent
of 12 to 15-year-olds and 44 per cent of 16 to 19-year-olds reporting this (Livingston
and Bober 2005).
In terms of specific online bullying behaviours that young people have
experienced, an Internet-based survey found that of 384 respondents under the age of
18, over half had been ignored by others (60 per cent), half had been disrespected by
others (50 per cent), nearly one-third had been called names by others (30 per cent),
and one-fifth had been threatened by others (21 per cent), picked on by others
(20 per cent), been made fun of by others (19 per cent) and experienced rumours
spread by others (19 per cent) (Patchin and Hinduja 2006). Furthermore, the survey
revealed that cyber bullying was most prevalent in chat rooms with 22 per cent of
cyber victims reporting this, followed by computer text messages (14 per cent) and
email (13 per cent) (Patchin and Hinduja 2006). Nevertheless, while advances in
technology have offered a new means of bullying, mobile phones and the Internet
offer a new means with which to address it. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion on cyber
peer support.)
Physical, verbal, relational and cyber forms of bullying can be used to bully
others for reasons related to issues of actual or perceived difference (Jennifer 2007;
Lahelma 2004). For example, race, religion or culture (Moran et al. 1993; Varma-Joshi
et al. 2004); special educational needs (SEN) or disability (Mencap 2007); sexual
orientation (Rivers and Cowie 2006; Vicars 2006); and gender (Duncan 1998). The
remainder of this section takes a brief look at each of these reasons for bullying, while
Case Study 1.1 highlights a young female’s view of the causes of bullying.
cutting her hair off, they’re trying to get her to steal money just like, and it
seems to me they can’t be bothered to do anything by themselves so they
started doing this because, maybe at the beginning they were nice people, they
started doing this because they needed like something and then now they just
get pleasure out of it …they’re bullying this girl because she’s in a slight way
different to other people …cos people are really different, because maybe
sometimes people just don’t like them or they don’t fit in or they [the bullies]
don’t think they’re right to be part of the popular group and they just put them
into this group that’s geeky …in every school you get a bunch of horrible
people and they [the bullies] seem like them …”.
Racist bullying
Disablist bullying
To date there has been relatively little empirical research into disablist bullying.
Nevertheless, research reveals that children with a learning disability, are substantially
more at risk of being bullied than other children (Martlew and Hodson 1991;
Nabuzoka and Smith 1993; Norwich and Kelly 2004). Whitney et al. (1994) carried
out an interview study with 186 children aged between 6- and 11-years-old, drawn
from three primary schools, to look at bully/victim problems among children with
special needs, compared with children of the same age who had no special needs
(labelled mainstream children by the researchers). The results revealed that nearly
two-thirds of the children with special educational needs reported being bullied,
compared with just over one quarter of mainstream children. Children with special
educational needs were also more at risk of bullying others, with just under one-third
reporting bullying others compared to about one-sixth of mainstream children.
More recently, Norwich and Kelly (2004) examined the views of 101 children
with moderate learning difficulties aged 10 to 11 and 13 to 14 regarding their
experiences of school in mainstream and special schools. Overall, 83 per cent of the
sample reported that they had experienced some form of bullying, with 68 per cent
experiencing a mixture of types of bullying, 24 per cent experiencing mainly verbal
bullying, 5 per cent experiencing mainly physical bullying and 3 per cent experienc-
ing mainly teasing. About half of the sample (49 per cent) reported that the bullying
was related to their learning difficulty. Participants identified the perpetrators of
bullying as pupils in their own schools, pupils from other mainstream schools, and
neighbours and peers outside school. About half of the sample (52 per cent) reported
bullying perpetrated by pupils in their own school, with differences according to age,
gender and school type. Mainstream primary girls reported significantly more
in-school bullying than special school primary girls (83 per cent compared with
42 per cent), while there was no such difference between mainstream and special
schoolboys.
In contrast, mainstream secondary boys reported less in-school bullying than
special school secondary boys (17 per cent compared with 70 per cent), while there
were no such differences between mainstream secondary girls and special school
secondary girls. Pupils in both mainstream and special schools reported bullying by
pupils from other mainstream schools. Special school pupils reported significantly
more bullying overall by other mainstream pupils than mainstream pupils did
(30 per cent compared with 6 per cent). Pupils in special schools reported signifi-
cantly more bullying by neighbours and peers outside school than mainstream pupils
(48 per cent compared with 4 per cent), highlighting the notion of neighbourhood
bullying (see Box 1.5).
photographs and drawings, and interviews to explore in more depth the issues
raised. Throughout the duration of the fieldwork (18 months), regular contact
was maintained with young people both on the street and in youth projects,
and observations of young people’s behaviour, interaction and communication
were recorded in field diaries.
The results suggested that 46 per cent of young people in the inner-city
neighbourhood and 27 per cent of those in the suburbs reported being bullied
within their locality. The authors distinguished four common types of bullying
behaviour, predominantly perpetrated by older teenagers. These included ‘barg-
ing in’ whereby older children move in on younger children’s games, with the
intention to disrupt or take over; ‘extortion’, whereby children are either
threatened or coerced into taking part in some form of antisocial behaviour;
‘intimidation’, which involved taunts, insults, threats and pushing, often for
the entertainment of the perpetrators; and, ‘name-calling’, most frequently
occurring among girls.
Two spatial features emerged from the data. First, bullying was more
prevalent in the inner city neighbourhood (57 per cent) compared with the
suburban area (42 per cent). Percy-Smith and Matthews (2001) suggest this may
relate to the large numbers of young people ‘hanging out’ on the street within
the inner urban area, coupled with a general lack of social opportunity, a closer
propinquity of different groups of young people, each with their own microcul-
tures, and a sense of boredom for some, a feature repeatedly identified through
informal discussions. On the other hand, the researchers observed that young
people in the suburbs had more space in which to meet and to develop their
own identities, and were more likely to be supported by their parents in
undertaking organized activities in clubs and organizations. Second, while
bullying was sporadic, spontaneous and dependent largely on social encounter
rather than place, there were particular areas within each neighbourhood where
bullying was more common. In both neighbourhoods, these included spaces
where different groups of young people were likely to meet away from the gaze
of adults, that is, parks (20 per cent inner/36 per cent suburban), local shopping
parades (29 per cent inner/10 per cent suburban) and local streets (68 per cent
inner/25 per cent suburban).
Of those reporting being bullied, 87 per cent in the inner neighbourhood
and 70 per cent in the suburbs mentioned that the perpetrators were older kids
or gangs. Whereas boys were only likely to be bullied by other boys, girls
reported being bullied by both boys and girls. The results suggest that, in
general, girls are less likely to experience neighbourhood bullying than boys are.
In the inner city neighbourhood, 36 per cent of girls compared with 64 per cent
of boys had experienced being bullied. In the suburban neighbourhood, these
figures were 45 per cent compared with 55 per cent, respectively. In parallel
with the incidence and nature of school bullying, these findings indicate that
boys are more actively involved in neighbourhood bullying than girls are.
The authors conclude that neighbourhood bullying is a significant problem
for many young people. They suggest that most instances of neighbourhood
bullying are the result of collisions between groups, each with its own microc-
ulture, within local encounter spaces where individuals attempt to create and
exploit power differentials in order to strengthen their own status and identity.
Homophobic bullying
Studies of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults have revealed that this group of individuals
are more likely to experience bullying at school. For example, in a three-year
retrospective questionnaire survey of 190 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
adults regarding their experiences of bullying at school, the results suggested that
participants’ experiences of homophobia were both longterm (mean duration of five
years) and systematic (Rivers and Cowie 2006). Furthermore, homophobic bullying
was perpetrated by groups of peers, usually all males or groups of males and females,
rather than by individuals. The most frequent forms of bullying were verbal in nature,
including name-calling (mostly names that were sexual in nature or specifically
related to their actual or perceived sexual orientation) and being ridiculed in front of
others (82 per cent and 71 per cent, respectively) (Rivers and Cowie 2006). A large
number of participants also reported indirect bullying, in the form of being teased
(58 per cent) and having rumours spread about them (59 per cent). A majority of
participants reported physical bullying (60 per cent), and a minority reported being
sexually assaulted either by peers or by teachers at school (11 per cent) (Rivers and
Cowie 2006). Physical forms of bullying such as hitting and kicking were found to be
significantly associated with outdoor locations such as in the school playground or
on the way home from school. In contrast, sexual assaults were associated with the
changing rooms. Generally, verbal abuse was associated with taking place within the
school building, for example, name-calling was significantly associated with locations
such as classrooms and changing rooms. Participants who reported indirect bullying
also reported being bullied within the school building. Being frightened by a look or
stare and rumour-spreading were associated with bullying taking place in corridors,
classrooms and changing rooms.
Furthermore, research suggests that children of gay and lesbian parents experi-
ence bullying of a homophobic nature (Ray and Gregory 2001). In a small-scale study
of 48 children and young people conducted in Australia, Ray and Gregory (2001)
found that the experience of being bullied mostly began after Grade 2, with just
under half of children in Grades 3 to 6 being bullied, decreasing to one-third of
secondary school pupils. The types of bullying experienced by participants included
verbal abuse, teasing and joking, and physical and sexual violence. Almost half the
participants had experienced teasing or bullying in relation to their parents’ sexuality,
and large numbers of children were subjected to anti-gay sentiments on a daily basis.
Gender bullying
Based on findings from research into sexual bullying, Duncan (1998) suggests that
sexual identity formation during adolescence plays an important role in the kinds of
As medical practitioners, Laflamme et al. (2002) and Engström et al. (2005) identified
an aspect of bullying that had scarcely been investigated before–the effect of an act of
victimization on a pupil’s likelihood of being injured. They predicted that the
emotions of fear, anger or sadness, triggered by an episode of bullying, might lower
children’s capacity to anticipate and avoid risk through, for example, distraction or
lack of concentration. In comparison with non-bullied peers, children who are
victimized are more likely to suffer poor health, low self-esteem, unhappiness, anxiety
and depression. So, these authors were interested to find out whether bullying at
school could trigger a chain of events that led to a lowering of vigilance and attention
+ A 14-year-old girl took part in a snowball fight. She was hit by a school-
mate, lost her balance, fell down and broke her ankle. On the previous day,
she was bullied because she was about to change school and so was
perceived as having ‘let down’ one of her friends who then mobilized a
group to harass her.
+ A 10-year-old girl was on a sports outing with her class and had to take part
in a team competition. For one of the activities, she had to vault over a boy
who was crouching on all fours. Their team was losing and so she felt under
pressure. Another pupil was supposed to help her jump but did not. She
missed her jump, fell on her arm and broke it. The day before she had been
threatened by a schoolmate who said that she would hit her. She was often
bullied about her weight.
+ A 14-year-old boy broke his knee during a basketball course at school while
demonstrating a move. During break time, the same morning, an older boy
had said very nasty things about his mother.
+ A 13-year-old girl was cycling to school with some friends when they saw
ahead of them a group of young people that often bully their schoolmates.
The girls were afraid and decided to take another route to school. The girl
rode over a pedestrian crossing without looking and was hit by a car.
This two-year study involved 575 children aged between 10 and 15 years living
in Stockholm County. Inclusion criteria for participation in the study were that
the children had been hospitalized or called back to hospital for a medical
check-up because of a physical injury. Children who had been physically
injured during a bullying episode were excluded from the study, as were
children who had self-harmed or who had been injured while under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. The researchers gathered information through
interviews on the children’s exposure to peer victimization at school prior to
the injury. All interviews were conducted within 10 days of the injury to
minimize recall bias. Of the 575 children, 26 per cent reported that they had
been bullied at least once during the last school term, 15 per cent had been
victimized more than once a week, and 4.4 per cent had been bullied on the day
of the injury. A further 14 (2.4 per cent) were bullied by peers within 2 hours of
the injury, and 7 (1.2 per cent) within 15 minutes.
The researchers found that being bullied is an injury trigger that especially
manifests itself in the short period after the bullying episode. The risk of being
injured was 5.5 times higher among children exposed to a bullying episode
Context
In this book, we understand the multiple causes of school bullying in terms of the
interaction of risk factors operating at four different levels thought to contribute to
aggressive behaviour, that is, individual, interpersonal, community and society. This
idea is illustrated in Figure 1.1 and is based on the World Health Organization’s
(WHO 1999, 2002) model of how to understand violence.
The first level of the model focuses on the biological and personal history
characteristics of the individual that might contribute to the development of bullying
behaviour or victimization. For example, early work carried out by Olweus (1980,
1997) with a sample of adolescents (n = 51) revealed the importance of a number of
factors in the development of an aggressive reaction pattern including the child’s
temperament. A child with a ‘hot-headed’ temperament as opposed to a child with a
quieter disposition was more likely to develop into an aggressive youngster. Moreover,
Olweus (1978, cited in Olweus 1997) found that, in general, typical victims were more
anxious and insecure than other pupils. This, combined with low levels of self-esteem
and feelings of shame, stupidity and unattractiveness, led Olweus (1997: 176) to label
this type of victim passive/submissive stating that their behaviour and attitude were ‘a
signal to others that they are insecure and worthless individuals who will not retaliate
if they are attacked or insulted’. On the other hand, provocative victims were
characterized by a combination of both anxious and aggressive reaction patterns; they
could also be regarded as lacking in concentration, suffering from hyperactivity, and
displaying irritating behaviour (Olweus 1997).
The second level of the model concentrates on how interpersonal relationships,
such as those with peers and family, have the potential to increase the risk for
victimization and perpetration of violence in terms of shaping an individual’s
behaviour. For example, peer friendships can act either as a protective factor against
Wider
Community Interpersonal Individual
Society
which is almost accepted as a normal event in everyday life, and ‘Mafia-like feelings’
which often pervade school communities, people’s habits and behaviours, can easily
support attitudes of moral disengagement.
The fourth level of the ecological model looks at the wider societal factors that
influence rates of violence. These include prevailing social and cultural norms that
support violence as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts, norms that give priority to
parental rights over child welfare, norms that entrench male dominance over women
and children, norms that support the use of excessive force by police against citizens,
and norms that support political conflict. For instance, it has been suggested that
schools tend to perpetuate typically male values, which are in opposition to the
development of empathic responses to others (Askew 1989; Carter 2002). As an
example, based on a four-year action research project in an all boys’ comprehensive,
Carter (2002) examined the dynamics of classroom relationships, perceptions of
rights and constructions of male identities. Based on her findings she argued that
attitudes and behaviours (e.g. aggressive interplay, low-level verbal and emotional
harassment, overt racism, open peer criticism) which explicitly espoused competition
and masculinity were prevalent and reinforced by implicit practices and subtle
encouragement (e.g. minimal help for pupils experiencing problems). Furthermore,
there seemed to be a reluctance among the staff to intervene in conflicts (e.g. in the
corridors), thereby compounding assumptions of acceptability.
Other societal factors, such as the health, educational, economic and social
policies that maintain high levels of economic or social inequality between groups in
society, are also included at this level. As an example, a nationwide study carried out
in the Republic of Ireland found that in both primary and secondary schools
designated as ‘disadvantaged’ (achieved on the basis of socio-economic and educa-
tional indicators such as unemployment levels, housing, medical card holders, and
information on basic literacy and numeracy skills), significantly more pupils reported
that they had bullied others than did pupils from ‘advantaged’ schools (O’Moore et
al. 1997).
The absence of such risk factors will help to protect children and young people
against involvement in crime, drug abuse and antisocial behaviour. In addition, there
are a number of protective factors that may help to protect children and young
people from bullying, especially those from high-risk backgrounds. Protective factors
refer to ‘factors that have been consistently associated with good outcomes for
children growing up in circumstances where they are, otherwise, heavily exposed to
risk’ (France and Utting 2005: 80). Such factors are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Protective factors for bullying (taken from Beinart et al. 2002; Farrington
1996; Youth Justice Board 2005).
Individual Characteristics
Female gender
Resilient temperament
A sense of self-efficacy
High intelligence
Interpersonal
A strong sense of attachment with one or both parents, characterized by a
stable, warm and affectionate relationship
Parents and teachers who provide effective supervision, clear rules and consist-
ent discipline
Parents, teachers and peers who hold pro-social attitudes and model positive
social behaviour
Recognition and due praise within the family and the school
Community
Opportunities to feel positively involved in the life of the school and the local
community
Parents, teachers and community leaders who lead by example and hold clearly
stated expectations regarding behaviour
Encouragement for all children and young people to fulfil their potential
Wider Society
Healthy social attitudes towards anti-social and criminal behaviour
Learning points
Resources
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007) Safe to Learn: Embedding
Anti-bullying Work in Schools. London: DCSF.
DCSF (2008) Bullying Involving Children with Special Educational Needs and
Disabilities: Safe to learn: Embedding Anti-bullying Work in Schools. London: DCSF.
Spell it out: Tackling homophobia in our schools. London: Stonewall. DVD and
teachers’ resource. (www.stonewall.org.uk).
Department for Education and Skills (2006). Bullying Around Racism, Religion and
Culture. London: DfES.
Web sites
Digizen offers information and advice on recognizing and addressing cyber bullying,
including classroom resources and a downloadable film called ‘Let’s Fight it Together’
(www.digizen.org).
EACH provides training on the legalities concerning sexual orientation and strives to
challenge homophobia through education (www.eachaction.org.uk).
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans History Month, an annual event every February
(www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk).
MENCAP is the UK’s leading learning disability charity working with people with a
learning disability and their families and carers (www.mencap.org.uk).
Schools Out works for equality in education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transpeo-
ple (www.schools-out.org.uk).
2 THE WHOLE-SCHOOL
APPROACH
Chapter overview
compared one group with a history of school absenteeism with a second group
who reported attending school on a regular basis. The findings suggested an
association between the experience of bullying and a history of absenteeism,
with GCE A-level passes significantly higher among those who reported regular
attendance at school, suggesting that those participants who were bullied were
likely to leave school earlier with fewer qualifications.
Bullying has probably always been a common feature of the school experience. In a
recent survey, Shaughnessy and Jennifer (2007) found that nearly one-half of primary
schoolchildren (40 per cent) and one-third of secondary schoolchildren (33 per cent)
had experienced bullying in the past two or three months. In addition, anecdotal
evidence suggests that school bullying is a major cause for concern for children and
young people in the UK. Since its launch in 1986, ChildLine has helped to provide
confidential advice and protection to nearly two million children and young people
(2005). For the ninth consecutive year, in the period April 2004 to March 2005,
bullying was the single most common reason for children and young people to call
the helpline; of 140,000 calls, 23 per cent were regarding bullying. When the recently
appointed Children’s Commissioner for England held a competition in 2006 inviting
children and young people to advise him of what was most important to them,
bullying attracted the largest single number of online responses than any other issue
(Office of the Children’s Commissioner 2006).
Despite the presence of bullying in our schools, we do not have to accept it as
an inevitable part of growing up. Since the 1970s, many researchers, practitioners and
policy makers have undertaken to understand the causes of school bullying, and the
means by which it can be reduced and prevented. The WHO’s (2002) World Report on
Violence and Health recommends a four-stage process for reducing and preventing
violence, which moves from problem to solution, and which we have adapted for the
understanding, reduction and prevention of school bullying. These are:
Our experience of working with schools suggests a number of crucial factors that are
central to the success of conducting a needs analysis. These include:
address school bullying will fail to effect the desired change. For example, a
middle-level manager in a mixed comprehensive school was tasked with the imple-
mentation of Checkpoints for Schools (Varnava 2000), a self-audit tool to address
school bullying and violence, with staff members and Year 7 pupils (Shaughnessy and
Jennifer 2004). The attempted implementation of the intervention was unsuccessful.
Visible support and participation from the highest levels of the school management
were not evident. In addition, the manager identified ineffective communication and
collaboration among staff, professional isolation, and the lack of a working group (see
below) to facilitate the implementation of the self-audit, as key reasons for its lack of
success. The formation of a working group composed of representatives from all
sections of the school community, including individuals in leadership positions who
are actively involved in decision-making who can guide the group, is the first
indication of support. Such a team can only be convened with the direction, support
and vision of someone at the top of the organization.
In addition, the management of a needs analysis and subsequent implementa-
tion of an intervention or set of interventions requires culture change that can be
challenging and, at times, even disturbing (Cowie and Wallace 2000). For example,
the participation of children and young people in the development and management
of a needs analysis often involves a major change in adults’ ways of relating to young
people; it requires a view of children and young people as active and competent
citizens, which emphasizes the validity and value of their experiences and perspec-
tives. This shift in relating to pupils impacts upon the status ascribed to children and
young people, which some adults and young people find disconcerting and threaten-
ing; while some are inspired and motivated by this new way of working, others are
induced to sabotage the process (Jennifer 2007).
Addressing a process of change requires an understanding of what school
culture is. According to Roffey (2000: 12):
the culture of a school is the impression that it leaves – how people are with
each other, what the expectations are in the broader sense, the attitudes and
perceptions that prevail, the general demeanour of the people who work
there and the consistency and cohesion amongst the workforce.
Hopkins et al. (1994, cited in Angelides and Ainscow 2000) have identified six
dimensions related to school context that help to conceptualize culture:
Roffey (2000) suggests that a significant determinant of change is the power of school
culture. She identifies a number of factors within a school culture that underpin
positive change including:
are a practical indicator of respect for children’s rights, the survey included questions
about children and young people’s perceptions and views regarding their school
councils (see Box 2.2).
In a survey of pupils’ and teachers’ views of civil rights, school councils and
daily life at school, results suggested that school councils provide a useful
method for pupils to contribute to school policy development (Alderson 2000).
A questionnaire was completed by 2,272 pupils aged 7 to 17, in Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, 58 teachers completed a single sheet teachers’ survey, and
school visits were carried out to conduct 34 group discussions, each consisting
of six pupils. About half of the pupils reported that they had a school council.
Of these, pupils who thought their council was effective generally held positive
views about their school’s social and academic activities, whereas those pupils
who claimed their council was ineffective generally had more negative attitudes
about their daily life at school. In addition, the survey results showed that a
council perceived by students to be tokenistic had as much or more negative
impact than having no council.
Visits to the schools demonstrated that teachers’ views ranged from perceiv-
ing school councils as central to positive activities and relationships in the
school, through to perceiving them as negative, that is, school councils were
viewed as a formality, as unnecessary, as an extra burden for overstressed staff,
or even as a danger to be avoided. Indeed, when teachers perceived school
councils as a means of meeting targets and gaining publicity, for example,
pupils did not perceive them as useful. One 8-year-old said, ‘The council
meetings aren’t much good because we have to write the newsletter then, and
we can’t discuss things’. On the other hand, in a school where everyone knew
that the council dealt with bullying and discipline problems if the classes could
not resolve them, as well as reviewing a budget and planning some of the
activities, amenities and policies in the school, pupils and teachers respected
and relied on the council.
The results suggested that school councils are more likely to work when
linked to other school practices, such as class circle time both before and after
school council meetings, when council members could effectively report and
feed back between peers and school management. Furthermore, the findings
suggested that in schools where staff and pupils worked together through
school councils, they could draw on a wider range of insights to solve problems
together. The results suggested that when adults respected pupils as morally
competent individuals, it was easier for children and young people to respect
the adults and one another. Alderson (2000) concluded that school councils
helped everyone to enjoy being a member of a positive, worthwhile community
in which pupils were valued, and shared ideals and values were considered.
The responsibilities of the working group will evolve over time in tandem with the
process of the needs analysis. For example, once established, the working group will
be responsible for planning and managing the needs analysis, and monitoring and
evaluating the intervention (Cowie and Jennifer 2007). However, monitoring and
evaluation does not represent the end of the change process, rather it represents a
new beginning as adults and young people collaboratively review the implementation
of the intervention, evaluate its effectiveness and the elements of the intervention
that relate to its success, in order to refine and improve it (Cowie et al. 2004).
School bullying comes in many forms as defined in Chapter 1. No two schools will
experience the same combination of school bullying issues. Furthermore, risk factors
such as individual characteristics, interpersonal relationships, community contexts
and wider societal factors as outlined in Chapter 1 will each impact differently on the
ways in which individual pupils respond to incidents of school bullying (see
Chapter 3). To develop an appropriate intervention or set of inventions, therefore,
requires a whole-school needs analysis that involves the systematic collection and
analysis of data regarding the full scale and nature of the phenomenon. The methods
established to identify, measure and monitor school bullying therefore represent the
foundation of any intervention (Leather et al. 1999). In order to develop an
appropriate and effective set of interventions, the aim of such data gathering is not
just to ascertain the incidence and nature of school bullying, but to identify why and
where it occurs, its causes and the risk factors for involvement in bullying incidents.
Data collection of this kind includes documentary evidence relevant to the reduction
and prevention of school bullying (e.g. the School Development Plan, school policies,
curriculum); school-based monitoring data (e.g. bullying incident records, absence
and exclusion records); questionnaires (see Resources and References sections for
examples of standardized measures), interviews and focus groups with representatives
from all sections of the school community; and observations in different parts of the
school at different times during the school day (Galvin 2006). Case Study 2.1 provides
an example of the systematic and impartial implementation of a whole-school
community needs analysis.
In the light of the recently published Safe to Learn guidance from the Depart-
ment of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF 2007b), Kerry Comprehensive
decided they wanted to review and revise their anti-bullying policy. In 2007–8 a
working group was established, which included the head teacher, one of the
deputy head teachers, the Educational Psychologist, the school counsellor and
two representatives each from the teaching staff, the non-teaching staff, the
MIESSNER, B. F. Radiodynamics.
The wireless control of torpedoes and other mechanisms. 112
illustrations, 5 1/2 x 8 1/4, cloth, 211 pp. Net, $2.00
MONCKTON, C. C. F. Radio Telegraphy.
173 Illustrations. 8vo cloth, 272 pp. (Van Nostrand's
Westminster Series.) Net, $2.00
Electro-metallurgy
Fifteenth Edition. Illustrated 12mo., cloth, 225 pp $1.00
Any Technical or
Scientific Book
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookultra.com