qualitative research on bullying in schools

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

LGBTQ bullying: a qualitative investigation of student and school health professional perspectives

V. a. earnshaw.

a Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

D. D. Menino

b Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

J. Perrotti

c Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Boston, MA, USA

T. N. Barnes

d Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

D. L. Humphrey

S. l. reisner.

e Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

f Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

g The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA, USA

Notes on contributors

David D. Menino is a Clinical Research Specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Lauren M. Sava is a Clinical Research Specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Jeff Perrotti is the Founding Director of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students.

Tia N. Barnes is an Assistant Professor in Human Development and Family Sciences and a Senior Researcher at the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware.

Layne D. Humphrey is the Assistant Center Director of the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware.

Sari L. Reisner is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and of Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, as well as a Research Scientist at The Fenway Institute at Fenway Health.

Researchers and practitioners have recently called for greater involvement of school health professionals (SHPs; e.g., school psychologists, nurses, guidance counselors) in interventions to identify and address bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) students. To inform future interventions, this study explored the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs on LGBTQ bullying and SHPs’ responses to LGBTQ bullying. Five online, asynchronous focus groups were held in 2018 with 28 LGBTQ students and 19 SHPs recruited from Massachusetts, US. Methods were guided by Rapid Qualitative Inquiry. Results revealed a disconnect in perceptions of LGBTQ bullying among LGBTQ students versus SHPs, with LGBTQ students reporting a range of often significant verbal, social, and physical bullying experiences and SHPs reporting minimal awareness of LGBTQ bullying at their schools. Transgender students reported bullying related to their gender identity, including verbal, physical, and sexual harassment, deadnaming (referred to by their birth name), and misgendering (called an incorrect pronoun). LGBTQ students of color reported bullying based on their race/ethnicity and pronounced social isolation. LGBTQ students reported mixed experiences with reporting bullying to SHPs. Intervention efforts are needed to enhance communication between LGBTQ students and SHPs, and to strengthen SHPs’ skills to respond to LGBTQ bullying.

Introduction

Bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) students occurs frequently and is harmful ( Earnshaw et al., 2017 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Zongrone, Clark, & Truong, 2018 ). Bullying involves unwanted aggressive treatment from peers that repeats, or is likely to repeat, over time and occurs within a power context ( Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014 ). For LGBTQ youth, this bullying may be associated with their sexual orientation and/or gender identity (i.e., LGBTQ bullying), as well as other characteristics such as their race/ethnicity ( Kosciw et al., 2018 ). Bullying undermines students’ physical and mental health, and the effects of bullying on health are long-lasting ( Gini & Pozzoli, 2013 ; Juvonen & Graham, 2014 ; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2016 ; Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2013 ). Moreover, stigma-based bullying, or bullying associated with a socially devalued characteristic such as minority sexual orientation or gender identity, is particularly harmful ( Russell, Sinclair, Poteat, & Koenig, 2012 ).

School health professionals (SHPs) have the potential to play an important role in identifying and supporting LGBTQ students experiencing bullying ( Espelage, 2016 ; Graybill & Proctor, 2016 ). Yet, their perspectives on LGBTQ bullying and their current roles in responding to LGBTQ bullying have been under-examined. Greater understanding of these perspectives can inform interventions to prepare SHPs to respond to LGBTQ bullying. We therefore characterize LGBTQ bullying and SHP responses to LGBTQ bullying from the perspectives of both LGBTQ students and SHPs in the current study. We compare SHP perspectives to those of LGBTQ students to explore the extent to which their points of view on LGBTQ bullying diverge.

LGBTQ bullying

Most LGBTQ students experience some form of bullying. In response to a national survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2015, 85% of LGBTQ students reported that they had experienced verbal bullying (i.e., harmful verbal or written communications such as name calling), 88% had experienced social or relational bullying (i.e., behaviors intended to harm relationships and reputations such as gossip), 60% had been sexually harassed (i.e., harassment of a sexual nature such as unwanted touching), and 34.7% had experienced physical bullying (i.e., use of physical force such as hitting) in the past year ( Kosciw et al., 2018 ). Bullying is associated with poor mental health, including symptoms of depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation ( Friedman, Koeske, Silvestre, Korr, & Sites, 2006 ; Russell & Joyner, 2001 ) as well as poor physical health, including negative physical health symptoms (e.g., abdominal pain, headache, skin problems) and high blood pressure ( Fekkes, 2006 ; Gini & Pozzoli, 2013 ; Rosenthal et al., 2015 ).

LGBTQ students are diverse, representing a wide range of sexual orientations, gender identities, races/ethnicities, and other characteristics. Some evidence suggests that transgender students have more negative school experiences than cisgender students (i.e., students whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at birth; Kosciw et al., 2018 ). Similar to stigma experienced by transgender adults ( Nadal, Whitman, Davis, Erazo, & Davidoff, 2016 ), bullying of transgender students may involve deadnaming (i.e., using the birth name of a student who has since changed their name) and/or misgendering (i.e., referring to a student with a pronoun or word that does not correctly reflect their gender identity).

Recent work has underscored the importance of adopting an intersectional lens when characterizing bullying experienced by LGBTQ students ( Daley, Solomon, Newman, & Mishna, 2007 ; Dominski, 2016 ; Earnshaw et al., 2017 ). Intersectionality recognizes that individuals live with multiple characteristics and identities, which may represent positions of oppression and/or privilege, that shape their experiences and outcomes ( Cole, 2009 ; Crenshaw et al., 1991 ; Rosenthal, 2016 ). Applied to LGBTQ bullying, an intersectional lens draws attention to how bullying may be experienced differently depending on LGBTQ youth’s intersecting identities. For example, LGBTQ students of color describe experiencing bullying related to both their race/ethnicity and sexual orientation and/or gender identity ( Daley et al., 2007 ). An intersectional lens additionally allows researchers to consider how intersections of identities and characteristics impact access to social capital (e.g., school practices and policies) that influences student outcomes ( Mink, Lindley, & Weinstein, 2014 ). Understanding the nuances of intersectional bullying may enhance the ability of SHPs to identify and support LGBTQ students experiencing bullying.

School health professionals

SHPs, including school psychologists, nurses, social workers, guidance counselors, and adjustment counselors, play key roles in promoting the safety and wellbeing of students. SHPs are well-positioned to lead indicated preventive bullying interventions within schools, which target students who are currently experiencing bullying ( Earnshaw et al., 2018 ; Juvonen & Graham, 2014 ). As examples, SHPs can identify and support students currently experiencing bullying given that supportive relationships with adults at school can buffer students from the negative effects of stigma-based bullying ( Earnshaw et al., 2014 ). SHPs can also help LGBTQ students develop de-escalation techniques and other social-emotional skills that may help them respond to bullying.

Researchers and practitioners have recently called for greater involvement of SHPs in addressing LGBTQ bullying ( Earnshaw et al., 2017 ; Espelage, 2016 ; Graybill & Proctor, 2016 ). Yet, SHPs have been under-utilized within stigma-based bullying interventions to date, including LGBTQ bullying interventions. A recent systematic review identified only one stigma-based bullying intervention that involved SHPs ( Earnshaw et al., 2018 ). This intervention targeted students with disabilities, and showed some promise in reducing experiences of bullying among students and improving their self-concept ( Vessey & O’Neill, 2011 ). Greater understanding of SHPs’ perspectives on LGBTQ bullying, including the extent to which they are aware of LGBTQ students’ experiences of bullying, as well as their current involvement in addressing LGBTQ bullying can inform future efforts to involve SHPs in LGBTQ bullying interventions.

Current study

The current study was conducted to inform future intervention efforts to involve SHPs in identifying and supporting LGBTQ students who have been bullied. The specific goals were to characterize and compare the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs on: (1) experiences of LGBTQ bullying, and (2) SHP responses to LGBTQ bullying. SHPs may need to address the unique needs of transgender students and LGBTQ students of color given that these students experience elevated rates of bullying in comparison to White LGBQ students ( Kosciw et al., 2018 ). The current study therefore additionally adopted an intersectional lens and sought to identify unique aspects of bullying experienced by transgender students and LGBTQ students of color.

Procedures and participants

Between January and April 2018, qualitative data were collected as part of a formative assessment to inform the development of an intervention to increase the capacity of SHPs to address LGBTQ bullying. Study procedures were guided by Rapid Qualitative Inquiry ( Beebe, 2014 ), which is closely derived from and often referred to as Rapid Assessment Process ( Beebe, 2001 , 2014 ; McMullen et al., 2011 ; Sabone et al., 2007 ) and is an intensive methodology for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting qualitative data to quickly develop a preliminary understanding of a situation. Rapid Qualitative Inquiry takes principles from ethnography but is targeted to reduce lengthiness of field work-analysis-translation ( Beebe, 2014 ). Rapid Qualitative Inquiry includes three foundational concepts. First, it aims to develop an insider’s perspective on an issue. The current study aimed to develop the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs on the issue of LGBTQ bullying in schools. Second, Rapid Qualitative Inquiry relies on triangulation of data by incorporating data from multiple sources. The current study included data from both LGBTQ students and SHPs. Two focus groups with students were initially planned, including one with LGBTQ students broadly and one including transgender students specifically. Due to underrepresentation of students of color in these focus groups, an additional group was conducted comprised of LGBTQ students of color. Two focus groups were also conducted with SHPs. Third, data analysis is conducted iteratively (described below) and is team-based. The current study involved a team of individuals with diverse expertise and perspectives, including experts in psychology, public health, education, and counseling. Additionally, the team worked closely with a youth and community advisory board that included LGBTQ youth and SHPs who were compensated for their time.

Participants were recruited from LGBTQ and SHP organizations and networks in Massachusetts, as well as from the personal and professional networks of individuals on the youth and community advisory board. Individuals who were interested in participating contacted a member of the study team who screened them for eligibility by phone. Students were eligible to participate if they were between the ages of 13 and 24, identified as LGBTQ, and currently attended, or had attended, middle and/or high school in Massachusetts. Individuals who were former students were eligible up to age 24 given evidence that the effects of bullying last into young adulthood ( Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2011 ). SHPs were eligible to participate in the study if they were age 18 or older, and currently served Massachusetts students in a school health-related capacity. All participants were required to speak English and have reliable internet access in order to be eligible to participate. Verbal consent was obtained via an initial phone conversation during which research staff reviewed he consent document and asked if the individual wanted to consent on the phone at that time or wait and decide, after which they were sent a PDF of the consent document. Obtaining parental consent to participate in a research study may discourage participation among LGBTQ youth who have not disclosed their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to their parents, thereby introducing sampling bias, or pose a risk to LGBTQ youth whose parents are not accepting of their LGBTQ identities ( Meezan & Martin, 2009 ). Therefore, a waiver of parental permission was obtained for students under the age of 18 years. Participants received a $50 gift card for their time. All procedures received institutional review board approval.

In total, 88 individuals expressed interest in the study and 55 enrolled (62.5%), including 34 LGBTQ students and 21 SHPs enrolled in the study. Several participants did not engage in the study (e.g., they did not respond to online prompts), and were therefore trimmed from the analytic sample. The final sample included 28 LGBTQ students and 19 SHPs, with participants representing most counties in Massachusetts and over half being outside the Boston area. Participants completed a brief online survey that included socio-demographic information; one LGBTQ student did not complete the survey. Participant characteristics are included in Table 1 .

Descriptive characteristics of study participants ( N = 46).

Notes: + One LGBTQ student who participated in the focus groups did not complete the socio-demographic survey (28 LGBQ students participated in focus groups, 27 had survey data).

Focus group protocols

Online, asynchronous focus groups were conducted. Online focus groups are recommended for research about sensitive topics with stigmatized, rare, and/or geographically dispersed populations ( Reisner et al., 2018 ). Asynchronous online focus groups operate like bulletin boards, wherein questions are periodically posted by researchers and participants can log on at times convenient for them to respond. Similar to an in-person focus group, participants are able to both respond directly to the researchers’ questions as well as read and respond to other participants’ posts. Participants do not need to be online simultaneously to chat in real time. In the current study, online focus groups lasted for four days and questions were posted in the mornings and evenings. Two members of the research team facilitated the groups by posting questions, probing, and monitoring discussion throughout the day. The platform was left open for an additional 1–2 days for final comments. Anonymity of participants was protected in several ways. First, participants were given a unique identification number that was the only identifier displayed in relation to their online responses. Second, no pictures or icons were displayed. Third, participants were asked not to disclose any potentially identifying information, including their name or the school where they attended or worked.

Examples of questions relevant to the current analyses that were posed to LGBTQ students included: “Please tell us about a time you or another LGBTQ student were bullied. What happened?” and “In regards to the experiences of bullying you described, did any adult at school intervene or try to stop the bullying? If so, what happened? What was the adult’s role at school?” Students were also asked “What specific issues have you noticed transgender students at your school facing?” and “What issues, if any, do you see non-White LGBTQ students facing at your school?” These questions were tailored to the perspectives of SHPs, with examples including: “Tell us about a time in which you witnessed a LGBTQ student being bullied. If you personally didn’t witness such an event, please describe any experience your colleagues may have had, if possible” and “Thinking back to your experience intervening in the bullying of a LGBTQ student, do you think you handled the situation effectively? Why or why not?” SHPs were also specifically asked about transgender students, including “What specific issues have you noticed transgender students at your school facing?” and LGBTQ students of color, including “What specific issues, if any, do you see non-White LGBTQ students facing at your school?” Probes were asked to clarify participant responses. Examples of probes include: “What do you mean by (component of participant response)?” “Can you talk a bit more about (component of participant response)?” “Can you provide an example?” How did you feel about (component of participant response)?”

Data analyses

Data analyses were also guided by Rapid Qualitative Inquiry ( Beebe, 2014 ), and were thus iterative and team-based. Each focus group yielded a transcript ranging from 131–204 pages in length, with size 17.5 font for prompts and 14.5 font for responses and single-spacing (for a total of 494 pages of transcript from the three youth focus groups and 318 pages of transcripts from the two SHP focus groups). Immediately following each focus group, initial findings were summarized and preliminary findings were identified by two members of the research team. These initial findings informed memos and data displays (e.g., charts organized by theme) which were shared with the full team. The team met to draw conclusions from each focus group. The team focused on reaching consensus around conclusions, and making contrasts and comparisons between participant groups. The study procedures and conclusions were refined with each additional focus group and as data analyses progressed. As a trustworthiness check, results were then shared with the youth and community advisory board to verify the conclusions drawn by the team. By following these analytic techniques, an understanding of experiences of and SHP responses to LGBTQ bullying from the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs was developed.

Experiences of LGBTQ bullying

LGBTQ students and SHPs reported on several types of bullying experienced by LGBTQ students. Below, LGBTQ bullying is described from the perspectives of White LGBQ students, transgender students, LGBTQ students of color, and SHPs. The perspectives of three transgender students of color are included in both the transgender students and LGBTQ students of color sections, depending on content of the data (e.g., quotes describing bullying related to gender identity are included in the transgender students paragraph). Taken together, the majority of LGBTQ students reported witnessing and/or experiencing bullying (82%, n = 23) whereas over half of SHPs (68%, n = 13) reported never having witnessed bullying.

White LGBQ students

White LGBQ students primarily described experiencing and/or witnessing verbal bullying, including being called names and hearing offensive jokes. For example, one student stated that “I was called the f-slur many times, as well as told that I should be killed or ‘converted.’ I was too scared to tell anyone, even my parents, because I was not out yet” (White, pansexual female). Some physical bullying was also reported by White LGBQ students. One student witnessed physical bullying of another LGBQ student, stating “I knew someone who was physically pushed around frequently by the same kid. That bullying was relentless and the victim of that bullying did not come to school some days because of the harassment” (White, mostly gay male). Students were also aware of instances of cyberbullying on a range of chat and other social media platforms. The student who witnessed physical bullying also reported that “I knew someone who was harassed in an online group chat and told to kill themselves.”

Transgender students

Transgender students also described being called names and hearing offensive jokes. In contrast to LGBQ students, however, bullying reported by transgender students was characterized by more explicit targeting of their gender identity, and more extreme physical assault. Many transgender students highlighted being deadnamed and misgendered as common forms of verbal bullying. One student reported that another student “started using my dead name and the wrong pronouns and telling everyone that was my name and that I was really a girl” (White, bisexual transgender male). Another student reported that “I have seen consistent misgendering (some malicious, some just ignorance) of non-passing rans folks or those who use neopronouns [gender-neutral pronouns]” (race unidentified, heterosexual transgender male). Students transitioning from male to female were particularly vulnerable to physical sexual assault. One student noted that they had been “sexually assaulted (since I started growing breast buds, I’ve had multiple people grab me and feel me up)” and that “when I wear a skirt… students try to lift it/pull it down. I am groped weekly” (White, mostly lesbian transgender female). Physical bullying occurred in bathrooms. One student described being “kicked out of both bathrooms. I had a kid try to hit me once for trying to use the bathroom. I’ve been suspended for my own safety” (White, mostly gay transgender male).

LGBTQ students of color

LGBTQ students of color reported experiences of bullying associated with their race and/or ethnicity in addition to, or sometimes instead of, their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These experiences also included name calling and offensive jokes. One student described experiencing race-and weight-based verbal bullying, stating: “I was not bullied for being LGBTQ … I was, however, bullied for being fat and for being dark skinned. I was called things like Oreo or African booty scratcher and people would make fun of me” (Black/African-American, bisexual transgender male). LGBTQ students of color experienced social isolation, and reported having a difficult time finding accepting friends. One noted that “I feel like White LGBTQ students have an easier time being accepted, while I have to deal with racism, queerphobia, and transphobia” (Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and White, queer, gender non-conforming student). This student further remarked that “I, in school, was outcasted for being visibly trans and queer. In a school of almost two thousand people, I had no friends, no one to sit with, no one to hang out with.”

In contrast to the experiences of bullying reported by students, which were described as frequent and sometimes severe, over half of SHPs reported that they had not witnessed LGBTQ bullying at their schools. They noted that there have been “no instances at my school that I am aware of” (school nurse), “I have not been directly involved in any bullying [situations]” (guidance counselor), and “I have not witnessed nor been involved directly with any type of incident” (social worker). One SHP was aware of anti-gay language at their school, but did not label this as bullying. They stated:

I can’t think of a time when I witnessed or heard of a LGBTQ student being bullied. I do know that students talk about microaggressions, such as stating things are “gay”, as someone mentioned earlier and have talked about how these comments impact them over time. This might not be “bullying” per se… (school psychologist)

Despite not personally witnessing bullying, some SHPs were aware that LGBTQ students experienced bullying at school. One noted that “I have also known students to face bullying, teasing, targeting, and general unkindness from students” (school psychologist).

SHPs’ discussion of the intersectional nature of LGBTQ bullying was limited. They recognized that transgender students experienced bullying in bathrooms, although their reports on bullying in bathrooms were less extreme than those from transgender students. For example, one SHP noted that “some other students would leave the bathroom or make comments when this (transgender) student was there” (guidance counselor). SHPs did not report that transgender students experienced sexual harassment or intentional deadnaming and/or misgendering, or that LGBTQ students of color experienced bullying based on their race or ethnicity.

Responses to LGBTQ bullying

Students and SHPs characterized the ways in which SHPs responded to LGBTQ bullying. Responses from White LGBQ students, transgender students, and LGBTQ students of color were largely similar and so have been reported in aggregate.

Students reported that SHPs often do not personally witness LGBTQ bullying. One student stated that SHPs may be unaware of LGBTQ bullying because “school health professionals are not in regular contact with groups of students, where these jokes get made” (White, mostly gay male). When students reached out to SHPs for help with bullying, they received a range of responses. Students reported that SHPs were sometimes not helpful. One student reported an unsupportive interaction where the SHP questioned their sexual orientation and did not address the incident of bullying. This student stated that “when I went to guidance, they just asked if I was sure that I was bisexual and said they couldn’t do anything because I had no evidence like texts or comments” (Latina, bisexual female). Other students reported that SHPs were well-intentioned, but lacked the skills or knowledge to address LGBTQ bullying. One student noted that “the guidance counselor is a very kind lady, I just think she is clueless when it comes to these issues, and almost feels as if she can’t touch the issues or do anything about them” (White, queer transgender male).

SHPs reported that they responded to LGBTQ bullying in a variety of ways. SHPs directly addressed students perpetrating LGBTQ bullying. They noted that “I have always done my best to stop these comments as soon as I’ve heard them” (school nurse) and “I stressed the importance of not continuing with this behavior and spreading rumors. I talked about being more sensitive and tolerant of others and their differences, having more empathy and compassion” (guidance counselor). SHPs also reported providing emotional support to LGBTQ students who had been bullied. Some provided support immediately following incidents of bullying, including one SHP who reported that they had “consoled a first grader when she was told by an older student that she couldn’t use the girl’s bathroom because she is a boy. I felt terrible … I empathized that it probably didn’t make her feel good when another student called her a boy” (school nurse). Others provided ongoing support to students experiencing bullying. One noted that LGBTQ students “are in counseling with me weekly so I am always checking in on how they are doing” (social worker).

The current study provides insights into the experiences of LGBTQ bullying and SHPs’ responses to LGBTQ bullying from the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs. Results reveal a possible disconnect in perceptions of LGBTQ bullying among LGBTQ students versus SHPs. LGBTQ students reported a range of often significant bullying experiences that were associated with their sexual orientation and gender identity as well as their race/ethnicity. In contrast, over half of SHPs reported not being aware of LGBTQ bullying at their school. Verbal bullying, including name calling and verbal harassment, was the most commonly reported form of bullying reported by LGBTQ students. Some SHPs also observed name calling and negative comments directed toward LGBTQ students. Transgender students reported a unique form of verbal bullying, deadnaming and misgendering, from both other students and adults at school. This form of harassment is also reported by transgender adults ( Nadal et al., 2016 ), and serves to invalidate individuals’ gender identity ( McLemore, 2015 ). LGBTQ students of color reported verbal bullying based on their race/ethnicity, including racial slurs, in addition to bullying related to their sexual orientation and gender identity. SHPs did not report observing intentional deadnaming and misgendering of transgender students, or race-based bullying of LGBTQ students of color. Transgender students reported the most pronounced physical bullying, which sometimes occurred in bathrooms and/or took the form of sexual assault (e.g., groping). SHPs were aware that transgender students were at risk of bullying in bathrooms, but did not report that transgender students were sexually harassed. LGBTQ students of color reported social bullying, including social ostracism and isolation. SHPs did not comment on social isolation of LGBTQ students of color.

The perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs on LGBTQ bullying may differ for several reasons. First, both students and SHPs reported that SHPs are often not physically present when the bullying takes place. Bullying typically occurs in classrooms, hallways, and bathrooms whereas SHPs may spend much of their time in offices. Second, many LGBTQ students often do not report bullying to adults, including SHPs. They may fear reporting because they have not yet disclosed their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to their parents, and therefore do not want the school to call home about LGBTQ bullying. They may also not report because they lack confidence that SHPs will helpfully resolve the issue. Third, LGBTQ bullying, similar to LGBTQ discrimination, may be changing over time from overt treatment, such as physical harassment, to more subtle treatment, such as deadnaming and misgendering ( Nadal et al., 2016 ). SHPs may be less likely to label this more subtle treatment as bullying. And finally, the students and SHPs interviewed in this study may not be aware of the extent to which SHPs are responding to LGBTQ bullying incidents. For example, students may be unaware when SHPs address bullying among students who perpetrate bullying due to privacy regulations.

Students reported having mixed experiences with reporting LGBTQ bullying to SHPs. Some students observed that SHPs ignored or refused to address LGBTQ bullying (e.g., due to no evidence of bullying). Other students felt that SHPs lacked knowledge and skills to support LGBTQ students experiencing bullying. SHPs characterized their responses to LGBTQ bullying more positively, reporting that they had responded to LGBTQ bullying in a variety of ways. They cited examples of addressing perpetrators of LGBTQ bullying and supporting LGBTQ students who had been bullied.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

The perspectives of SHPs on LGBTQ bullying have been under-studied in the literature to date. The current study addresses this gap to inform future bullying interventions involving SHPs. Methodology and analysis strategies were guided by Rapid Qualitative Inquiry ( Beebe, 2014 ), which is recommended when seeking to develop a preliminary understanding of an understudied phenomenon to inform intervention development. Analyses were conducted by a team of experts with diverse backgrounds and were informed by a youth and community advisory board that included LGBTQ youth and SHPs. The use of online focus groups enabled the inclusion of a geographically diverse sample comprised of participants from urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout Massachusetts, as well as historically marginalized populations ( Reisner et al., 2018 ). Given that participants can respond anonymously, online focus groups may yield more honest answers regarding sensitive topics such as bullying than in-person focus groups.

Several limitations of the current study may be addressed with future work. Results of this Rapid Qualitative Inquiry study yielded preliminary insight into a disconnect in perceptions of LGBTQ bullying among LGBTQ students and SHPs. More in-depth research methodologies, including individual interviews, can continue to clarify this disconnect and why it exists. Asynchronous online focus groups lack nonverbal information, such as facial expressions and vocal cues, which may limit interpretability or even lead to misunderstandings. In-person qualitative interviews and focus groups may therefore yield additional insight. Additionally, quantitative research methodologies comparing the perceptions of LGBTQ students and SHPs can establish the magnitude of this disconnect. LGBTQ students and SHPs in the current study were from different schools. Future research should include LGBTQ students and SHPs from the same school to better compare the perspectives of students and SHPs in the same context.

Future work may also address issues of generalizability to the diverse populations of LGBTQ students and SHPs, as well as diverse geographic regions where LGBTQ bullying persists. Participants were recruited from LGBTQ and SHP organizations and networks as well as from the personal and professional networks of individuals on the youth and community advisory board. It is therefore possible that participants may have had a greater interest in this topic, or greater willingness to talk about their experiences of bullying, than others. Future work in this area should employ recruitment methods that may yield more representative samples. Some LGBTQ identities and experiences were underrepresented in the student sample, and therefore results may not generalize to all LGBTQ students. For example, our sample included only one young transgender woman. Transgender women may be particularly at risk of some forms of more extreme bullying, such as sexual harassment due to intersecting transphobia and misogyny, and therefore more research is needed to better capture their experiences of LGBTQ bullying. Moreover, LGBTQ students may experience bullying based on other characteristics, including disability, weight, and religion. More research is needed with diverse samples of LGBTQ students to further understand intersectional experiences of bullying. Similarly, the SHPs included in the current sample were homogeneous in regard to race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Although this may reflect the population of SHPs, which predominately identify as White and women ( Willgerodt, Brock, & Maughan, 2018 ), it is possible that SHPs from more diverse backgrounds, including LGBTQ SHPs and SHPs of color, have different perspectives on LGBTQ bullying. Future research with diverse samples of SHPs is needed to continue to understand SHP perspectives on LGBTQ bullying. Also needed are studies in other geographic regions. According to GLSEN’s 2017 National School Climate Survey ( Kosciw et al., 2018 ), LGBTQ students in the Northeast and West report lower rates of LGBTQ bullying than LGBTQ students in the South and Midwest regions of the United States. These students also report greater access to LGBTQ-related resources at school, and are more likely to live in states with enumerated anti-bullying laws and policies protecting students from LGBTQ bullying. It is critical to examine the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs living in other states, especially in places where LGBTQ bullying may be more pronounced.

Conclusions and implications

Recent researchers and practitioners have called for greater involvement of SHPs in LGBTQ bullying interventions ( Earnshaw et al., 2017 ; Espelage, 2016 ; Graybill & Proctor, 2016 ). In particular, SHPs have potential to play a powerful role in indicated preventive bullying interventions by identifying and supporting LGBTQ students experiencing bullying. The current study identifies two potential barriers to SHPs’ involvement in such LGBTQ bullying interventions, including: (1) lack of awareness of LGBTQ bullying among SHPs, and (2) lack of knowledge and skills to guide SHPs in their response to LGBTQ bullying. Interventions that enhance communication between LGBTQ students and SHPs may help to improve awareness of LGBTQ bullying among SHPs. Given LGBTQ students’ concerns regarding confidentiality surrounding their sexual orientations and gender identities, it is critical that such communication be confidential, safe, and supportive. Additionally, interventions that enhance knowledge of LGBTQ students’ experiences and needs as well as skills to interact with LGBTQ students may strengthen SHPs’ abilities to serve this vulnerable population. Clear policies that delineate how SHPs should respond to LGBTQ bullying may reduce ambiguity and variability in SHP responses.

There are existing resources that may inform these intervention efforts and aid SHPs in their current efforts to support LGBTQ youth. StopBullying.gov (2019) contains resources to help adults identify bullying and initiate conversations surrounding bullying. SHPs may consider using a combination of direct (e.g., Have you been bullied by other student?) and indirect (e.g., Have you had any problems accessing restrooms?) questions to assess whether youth have experienced bullying ( Earnshaw, Bogart, Poteat, Reisner, & Schuster, 2016 ). Additionally, the American Medical Association offers educational resources for healthcare professionals about the health needs of LGBTQ individuals ( Understanding LGBTQ health issues, 2019 ), and GLSEN offers professional development resources for educators about the unique needs of LGBTQ students (Read, watch, collaborate: GLSEN PD for educators, n.d.). With greater support, guidance, and training, SHPs are poised to become an effective resource for LGBTQ students experiencing bullying.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the youth and community advisory board for their contributions and collaboration on this study (alphabetical): Landon Callahan, Sonya Epstein, Opal Hines-Fisher, Lee Hoegler, Kira Houston, Karen Jarvis-Vance, Ken Rufo, and Rothsaida Sylviance.

This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst & The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Award UL1 TR001102) and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. VAE’s contributions were further supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01 DA042881). Funders were not involved in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; write up of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers, or the National Institutes of Health.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests. They alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1653808 .

• Beebe J (2001). Rapid assessment practice: An introduction . New York, NY: AltaMira Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beebe J (2014). Rapid qualitative inquiry: A field guide to team-based assessment (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole ER (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology . The American Psychologist , 64 ( 3 ), 170–180. doi: 10.1037/a0014564 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crenshaw K, Creer J, Cheung E, Rimonte N, Smith F, Banks T, … Monaghan H (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 ( 6 ), 1241–1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daley A, Solomon S, Newman PA, & Mishna F (2007). Traversing the margins: Intersectionalities in the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth . Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services , 19 ( 3–4 ), 9–29. doi: 10.1080/10538720802161474 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dominski EH (2016). Intersectional bullying, LGBT youth and the construction of power . International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences , 20 ( 9 ), 3265–3269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Earnshaw VA, Bogart LM, Poteat VP, Reisner SL, & Schuster MA (2016). Bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth . Pediatric Clinics of North America , 63 ( 6 ), 999–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earnshaw VA, Reisner SL, Juvonen J, Hatzenbuehler ML, Perrotti J, & Schuster MA (2017). LGBTQ bullying: Translating research to action in pediatrics . Pediatrics , 140 ( 4 ), e20170432. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0432 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earnshaw VA, Reisner SL, Menino DD, Poteat VP, Bogart LM, Barnes TN, & Schuster MA (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review . Developmental Review , 48 , 178. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earnshaw VA, Rosenthal L, Carroll-Scott A, Peters SM, McCaslin C, & Ickovics JR (2014). Teacher involvement as a protective factor from the association between race-based bullying and smoking initiation . Social Psychology of Education , 17 ( 2 ), 197. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9250-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage DL (2016). Sexual orientation and gender identity in schools: A call for more research in school psychology-no more excuses . Journal of School Psychology , 54 , 5–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2015.11.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fekkes M (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 ( 5 ), 1568–1574. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0187 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman MS, Koeske GF, Silvestre AJ, Korr WS, & Sites EW (2006). The impact of gender-role nonconforming behavior, bullying, and social support on suicidality among gay male youth . Journal of Adolescent Health , 38 ( 5 ), 621–623. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.04.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gini G, & Pozzoli T (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis . Pediatrics , 132 ( 4 ), 720–729. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-0614 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, & Lumpkin CD (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Graybill EC, & Proctor SL (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Limited representation in school support personnel journals . Journal of School Psychology , 54 , 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2015.11.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Juvonen J, & Graham S (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims . Annual Review of Psychology , 65 , 159–185. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosciw JG, Greytak EA, Zongrone AD, Clark CM, & Truong NL (2018). The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: GLSEN. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLemore KA (2015). Experiences with misgendering: Identity misclassification of transgender spectrum individuals . Self and Identity , 14 ( 1 ), 51–74. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2014.950691 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMullen CK, Ash J, Sittig D, Bunce A, Guappone K, Dykstra R, … Wright A (2011). Rapid assessment of clinical information systems in the healthcare setting: An efficient method for time-pressed evaluation . Methods of Information in Medicine , 1 ( 3 ), 233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.01.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meezan W, & Martin JL (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mink MD, Lindley LL, & Weinstein AA (2014). Stress, stigma, and sexual minority status: The intersectional ecology model of LGBTQ health . Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services , 26 ( 4 ), 502–521. doi: 10.1080/10538720.2014.953660 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadal KL, Whitman CN, Davis LS, Erazo T, & Davidoff KC (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: A review of the literature . The Journal of Sex Research , 53 ( 4–5 ), 488–508. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2016). Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23482 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Read, watch, collaborate: GLSEN PD for educators. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.glsen.org/educate/professional-development
• Reisner SL, Randazzo RK, White Hughto JM, Peitzmeier S, DuBois LZ, Pardee DJ, … Potter J (2018). Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: Methodological considerations for online focus group discussions . Qualitative Health Research , 28 ( 10 ), 1658–1673. doi: 10.1177/1049732317705355 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal L (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity . American Psychologist , 71 ( 6 ), 474–485. doi: 10.1037/a0040323 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal L, Earnshaw VA, Carroll-Scott A, Henderson KE, Peters SM, McCaslin C, & Ickovics JR (2015). Weight- and race-based bullying: Health associations among urban adolescents . Journal of Health Psychology , 20 ( 4 ), 401–412. doi: 10.1177/1359105313502567 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, & Joyner K (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study . American Journal of Public Health , 91 ( 8 ), 1276–1281. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.8.1276 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Ryan C, Toomey RB, Diaz RM, & Sanchez J (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment . Journal of School Health , 81 ( 5 ), 223–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00583.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Sinclair KO, Poteat VP, & Koenig BW (2012). Adolescent health and harassment based on discriminatory bias . American Journal of Public Health , 102 ( 3 ), 493–495. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300430 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabone M, Ntsayagae E, Brown MS, Seboni NM, Mogobe KD, & Sebego M (2007). Perceptions of undergraduate students not participating in HIV/AIDS prevention activities in Botswana . International Nursing Review , 54 ( 4 ), 332–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2007.00544.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• StopBullying.gov . (2019). Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov
• Understanding LGBTQ health issues. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/understanding-lgbtq-health-issues
• Vaillancourt T, Hymel S, & McDougall P (2013). The biological underpinnings of peer victimization: Understanding why and how the effects of bullying can last a lifetime . Theory into Practice , 52 ( 4 ), 241–248. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2013.829726 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vessey JA, & O’Neill KM (2011). Helping students with disabilities better address teasing and bullying situations: A MASNRN study . The Journal of School Nursing , 27 ( 2 ), 139–148. doi: 10.1177/1059840510386490 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willgerodt MA, Brock DM, & Maughan ED (2018). Public school nursing practice in the United States . Journal of School Nursing , 34 ( 3 ), 232–244. doi: 10.1177/1059840517752456 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Q Methodology as an Innovative Addition to Bullying Researchers’ Methodological Repertoire

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2022
• Volume 4 , pages 209–219, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Adrian Lundberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8555-6398 1 &
• Lisa Hellström   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9326-1175 1  

5716 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 18 July 2022

This article has been updated

The field of bullying research deals with methodological issues and concerns affecting the comprehension of bullying and how it should be defined. For the purpose of designing relevant and powerful bullying prevention strategies, this article argues that instead of pursuing a universal definition of what constitutes bullying, it may be of greater importance to investigate culturally and contextually bound understandings and definitions of bullying. Inherent to that shift is the transition to a more qualitative research approach in the field and a stronger focus on participants’ subjective views and voices. Challenges in qualitative methods are closely connected to individual barriers of hard-to-reach populations and the lack of a necessary willingness to share on the one hand and the required ability to share subjective viewpoints on the other hand. By reviewing and discussing Q methodology, this paper contributes to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire of less-intrusive methodologies. Q methodology offers an approach whereby cultural contexts and local definitions of bullying can be put in the front. Furthermore, developmentally appropriate intervention and prevention programs might be created based on exploratory Q research and could later be validated through large-scale investigations. Generally, research results based on Q methodology are expected to be useful for educators and policymakers aiming to create a safe learning environment for all children. With regard to contemporary bullying researchers, Q methodology may open up novel possibilities through its status as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Qualitative Methods to Measure and Understand Key Features of Adolescent Bullying: A Call to Action

Natalie Spadafora, Anthony A. Volk & Andrew V. Dane

The Importance of Being Attentive to Social Processes in School Bullying Research: Adopting a Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach

Camilla Forsberg

Problems and Coping Strategies in Conducting Comparative Research in School Bullying Between China and Norway

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Bullying, internationally recognized as a problematic and aggressive form of behavior, has negative effects, not only for those directly involved but for anybody and in particular children in the surrounding environment (Modin, 2012 ). However, one of the major concerns among researchers in the field of bullying is the type of research methods employed in the studies on bullying behavior in schools. The appropriateness of using quantitative or qualitative research methods rests on the assumption of the researcher and the nature of the phenomena under investigation (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ). There is a need for adults to widen their understanding and maintain a focus on children’s behaviors to be able to provide assistance and support in reducing the amount of stress and anxiety resulting from online and offline victimization (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ). A crucial step for widening this understanding is an increased visibility of children’s own viewpoints. When the voices of children, particularly those of victims and perpetrators, but also those of bystanders are heard in these matters, effective support can be designed based specifically on what children want and need rather than what adults interpret and understand to be supporting the child (O’Brien, 2019 ). However, bullying victims and their perpetrators are hard-to-reach populations (Shaghaghi et al., 2011 ; Sydor, 2013 ) for a range of reasons. To name but a few, researchers perennially face difficulties regarding potential participants’ self-identification, the sensitivity of bullying topics, or the power imbalance between them and their young respondents. Furthermore, limited verbal literacy and/or a lack of cognitive ability of some respondents due to age or disability contribute to common methodological issues in the field. Nevertheless, and despite ethical restrictions around the immediate questioning of younger children or children with disabilities that prohibit researchers to perform the assessments with them directly, it would be ethically indefensible to not study a sensitive topic like bullying among vulnerable groups of children. Hence, the research community is responsible for developing valid and reliable methods to explore bullying among different groups of children, where the children’s own voices are heard and taken into account (Hellström, 2019 ). Consequently, this paper aims to contribute to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire with an additional less-intrusive methodology, particularly suitable for research with hard-to-reach populations.

Historically, the field of bullying and cyberbullying has been dominated by quantitative research approaches, most often with the aim to examine prevalence rates. However, recent research has seen an increase in the use of more qualitative and multiple data collection approaches on how children and youth explain actions and reactions in bullying situations (e.g., Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). This may be translated into a need to more clearly understand the phenomenon in different contexts. As acknowledged by many researchers, bullying is considerably influenced by the context in which it occurs and the field is benefitting from studying the phenomenon in the setting where all the contextual variables are operating (see, e.g., Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Scheithauer et al., 2016 ; Torrance, 2000 ). Cultural differences in attitudes regarding violence as well as perceptions, attitudes, and values regarding bullying are likely to exist and have an impact when bullying is being studied. For this reason, listening to the voices of children and adolescents when investigating the nature of bullying in different cultures is essential (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Scheithauer et al., 2016 ).

In addition to studying outcomes or products, bullying research has also emphasized the importance of studying processes (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ). Here, the use of qualitative methods allows scholars to not only explore perceptions and understandings of bullying and its characteristics, but also interpret bullying in light of a specific social context, presented from a specific internal point of view. In other words, qualitative approaches may offer methods to understand how people make sense of their experiences of the bullying phenomenon. The processes implemented by a qualitative approach allow researchers to build hypotheses and theories in an inductive way (Atieno, 2009 ). Thus, a qualitative approach can enrich quantitative knowledge of the bullying phenomenon, paying attention to the significance that individuals attribute to situations and their own experiences. It can allow the research and clinical community to better project and implement bullying assessment and prevention programs (Hutson, 2018 ).

Instead of placing qualitative and quantitative approaches in opposition, they can both be useful and complementary, depending on the purpose of the research (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ). In their review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school, Hong and Espelage ( 2012 ) underlined that instead of using single methods, mixed methods have the advantage of generating a deeper and more complex understanding of the phenomenon. By combining objective data with information about the personal context within which the phenomenon occurs, mixed methods can generate new insights and new perspectives to the research field (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Kulig et al., 2008 ; Pellegrini & Long, 2002 ). However, Hong and Espelage ( 2012 ) also argued that mixed methods can lead to divergence and contradictions in findings that may serve as a challenge to researchers. For example, Cowie and Olafsson ( 2000 ) examined the impact of a peer support program to reduce bullying using both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. While a quantitative approach collecting pre-test and post-test data showed no effects in decreasing bullying, interviews with peer supporters, students, and potential users of the intervention revealed the strength of the program and its positive impact, in light of students and peer supporters. Thus, rather than rejecting the program, the divergence in findings leads to a new rationale for modifying the program and addressing its limits.

Understandably, no single data collection approach is complete but deals with methodological issues and concerns affecting the research field and the comprehension of bullying. To provide a robust foundation for the introduction of an additional methodological perspective in bullying research, common data collection methods and methodological issues are outlined below.

Methodological Issues in Bullying Research

Large-scale cohort studies generating statistical findings often use R-statistics, descriptive analyses, averages, and correlations to estimate and compare prevalence rates of bullying, to explore personality traits of bullies and victims, and the main correlates and predictors of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, large-scale surveys have a harder time examining why bullying happens (O’Brian, 2019 ) and usually do not give voice to study objects’ own unique understanding and experiences (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Bosacki et al., 2006 ; Woodhead & Faulkner, 2008 ). Other concerns using large-scale surveys include whether a definition is used or the term bullying is operationalized, which components are included in the definition, what cut-off points for determining involvement are being used, the lack of reliability information, and the absence of validity studies (Swearer et al., 2010 ).

Other issues include the validity in cross-cultural comparisons using large-scale surveys. For example, prevalence rates across Europe are often established using standard questionnaires that have been translated into appropriate languages. Comparing four large-scale surveys, Smith et al. ( 2016 ) found that when prevalence rates by country are compared across surveys, there are some obvious discrepancies, which suggest a need to examine systematically how these surveys compare in measuring cross-national differences. Low external validity rates between these studies raise concerns about using these cross-national data sets to make judgments about which countries are higher or lower in victim rates. The varying definitions and words used in bullying research may make it difficult to compare findings from studies conducted in different countries and cultures (Griffin & Gross, 2004 ). However, some argue that the problem seems to be more about inconsistency in the type of assessments (e.g., self-report, nominations) used to measure bullying rather than the varying definition of bullying (Jia & Mikami, 2018 ). When using a single-item approach (e.g., “How often have you been bullied?”) it is not possible to investigate the equivalency of the constructs between countries, which is a crucial precondition for any statistically valid comparison between them (Scheithauer et al., 2016 ). Smith et al. ( 2016 ) conclude that revising definitions and how bullying is translated and expressed in different languages and contexts would help examine comparability between countries.

Interviews, focus groups and the use of vignettes (usually with younger children) can all be regarded as suitable when examining youths’ perceptions of the bullying phenomenon (Creswell, 2013 ; Hellström et al., 2015 ; Hutson, 2018 ). They all allow an exploration of the bullying phenomenon within a social context taking into consideration the voices of children and might solve some of the methodological concerns linked to large-scale surveys. However, these data collection methods are also challenged by individual barriers of hard-to-reach populations (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015 ) and may include the lack of a necessary willingness to share on the one hand and the required ability to share subjective viewpoints on the other hand.

Willingness to Share

In contrast to large-scale surveys requiring large samples of respondents with reasonable literacy skills, interviews, which may rely even heavier on students’ verbal skills, are less plentiful in bullying research. This might at least partially be based on a noteworthy expectation of respondents to be willing to share something. It must be remembered that asking students to express their own or others’ experiences of emotionally charged situations, for example concerning bullying, is particularly challenging (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ) and can be perceived as intrusive by respondents who have not had the opportunity to build a rapport with the researchers. This constitutes a reason why research in this important area is difficult and complex to design and perform. Ethnographic studies may be considered less intrusive, as observations offer a data collection technique where respondents are not asked to share any verbal information or personal experiences. However, ethnographical studies are often challenging due to the amount of time, resources, and competence that are required by the researchers involved (Queirós et al., 2017 ). In addition, ethnographical studies are often used for other purposes than asking participants to share their views on certain topics.

Vulnerable populations often try to avoid participating in research about a sensitive topic that is related to their vulnerable status, as recalling and retelling painful experiences might be distressing. The stigma surrounding bullying may affect children’s willingness to share their personal experiences in direct approaches using the word bullying (Greif & Furlong, 2006 ). For this reason, a single-item approach, in which no definition of bullying is provided, allows researchers to ask follow-up questions about perceptions and contexts and enables participants to enrich the discussion by adjusting their answers based on the suggestions and opinions of others (Jacobs et al., 2015 ). Generally, data collection methods with depersonalization and distancing effects have proven effective in research studying sensitive issues such as abuse, trauma, stigma and so on (e.g., Cromer & Freyd, 2009 ; Hughes & Huby, 2002 ). An interesting point raised by Jacobs and colleagues ( 2015 ) is that a direct approach that asks adolescents if they have ever experienced cyberbullying may lead to a poorer discussion and an underestimation of the phenomenon. This is because perceptions and contexts often differ between persons and because adolescents do not perceive all behaviors as cyberbullying. The same can be true for bullying taking place offline (Hellström et al., 2015 ).

When planning research with children, it is important to consider the immediate research context as it might affect what children will talk about (Barker & Weller, 2003 ; Hill, 2006 ; Punch, 2002 ). In addition to more material aspects, such as the room or medium for a dialog, the potential power imbalance created in an interview situation between an adult researcher and the child under study adds to a potentially limited willingness to share. Sitting in front of an adult interviewer may create situations where children may find it difficult to express their feelings and responses may be given based on perceived expectations (Punch, 2002 ). This effect is expected to be even stronger when studying a sensitive topic like bullying. Therefore, respondents may provide more honest responses when they are unaware that the construct of bullying is being assessed (Swearer et al., 2010 ). Moreover, in research about sensitive topics, building a strong connection with participants (Lyon & Carabelli, 2016 ), characterized by mutual trust, is vital and might overcome the initial hesitation to participate and share personal accounts. Graphic vignettes have successfully been used as such unique communication bridges to collect detailed accounts of bullying experiences (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ). However, some reluctance to engage has been reported even in art-based methods, usually known to be effective in research with verbally limited participants (Bagnoli, 2009 ; Vacchelli, 2018 ) or otherwise hard-to-reach populations (Goopy & Kassan, 2019 ). Most commonly, participants might not see themselves as creative or artistic enough (Scherer, 2016 ). In sum, the overarching challenging aspect of art-based methods related to a limited willingness to share personal information is an often-required production of some kind.

Ability to Share

Interviews as a data collection method demand adequate verbal literacy skills for participants to take part and to make their voices heard. This may be challenging especially for younger children or children with different types of disabilities. There is a wide research gap in exploring the voices of younger children (de Leeuw et al., 2020 ) and children with disabilities (Hellström, 2019 ) in bullying research. Students’ conceptualization of bullying behavior changes with age, as there are suggestions that younger students tend to focus more on physical forms of bullying (such as fighting), while older students include a wider variety of behaviors in their view of bullying, such as verbal aggression and social exclusion (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Monks & Smith, 2006 ; Smith et al., 2002 ; Hellström et al., 2015 ). This suggests that cognitive development may allow older students to conceptualize bullying along a number of dimensions (Monks & Smith, 2006 ). Furthermore, the exclusion of the voices of children with disabilities in bullying research is debated. It is discussed that the symptoms and characteristics of disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), i.e., difficulties understanding the thoughts, emotions, reactions, and behaviors of others, which makes them the ideal target for bullying may also make it hard for them to perceive, verbalize and report bullying and victimization in a reliable and valid manner (Slaughter et al., 2002 ). It may also be difficult for children with ASD to differentiate between playful teasing among friends and hurtful teasing. While many argue that children with ASD are unreliable respondents of victimization, under-reporting using parental and teacher reports has been shown in research on bullying (Waters et al., 2003 ; Bradshaw et al., 2007 ) and child maltreatment (Compier-de Block et al., 2017 ).

This Paper’s Contribution

The present paper contributes to this special issue about qualitative school bullying and cyberbullying research by reviewing and discussing Q methodology as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches in the field. Despite the fact that Q methodology had been proclaimed as “especially valuable […] in educational psychology” (Stephenson, 1935 , p. 297) nearly 90 years ago, the approach has only relatively recently been described as an up-and-coming methodological choice of educational researchers interested in participants’ subjective views (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). Even though, Q enables researchers to investigate and uncover first-person accounts, characterized by a high level of qualitative detail in its narrative description, only few educational studies have applied Q methodology to investigate the subject of bullying (see Camodeca & Coppola, 2016 ; Ey & Spears, 2020 ; Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Wester & Trepal, 2004 ). Within the wider field of bullying, Q methodology has also been used to investigate workplace bullying in hospitals (Benmore et al., 2018 ) and nursing units (Choi & Lee, 2019 ). By responding to common methodological issues outlined earlier, the potential Q methodology might have for bullying research is exemplified. A particular focus is thereby put on capturing respondents’ subjective viewpoints through its less-intrusive data collection technique. The present paper closes by discussing implications for practice and suggesting future directions for Q methodological bullying and cyberbullying research, in particular with hard-to-reach populations.

An Introduction to Q Methodology

Q as a methodology represents a larger conceptual and philosophical framework, which is by no means novel. However, the methodology has largely been marginalized since its invention in the 1930s by William Stephenson (Brown, 2006 ). As a research technique, it broadly consists of three stages that each can be split into a set of steps (see Fig.  1 ); (1) carefully constructing a data collection instrument, (2) collecting data, and (3) analyzing and interpreting data. The central, and therefore also best-known feature of Q methodology is Q sorting to collect data in the form of individual Q sorts. Participants thereby rank order a sample of self-referent stimuli along a continuum and in accordance with a central condition of instruction; for example, children might be asked to what extent particular scenarios describe bullying situations (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ) or they might be instructed to sort illustrated ways to resolve social exclusion according to the single face-valid dimension of “least preferred to most preferred” (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ). As soon as all items are placed on a most often bell-shaped distribution grid (see Fig.  2 ), participants might be asked to elaborate on their item placement to add a further layer of qualitative data. Such so-called post-sorting activities might include written annotations of items placed at the ends of the continuum or form the structure for interviews (Shemmings & Ellingsen, 2012 ).

Three stages and six steps of a Q methodological research process (adapted from Lundberg et al., 2020 )

A vertical distribution grid with two examples of face-valid dimensions. This rather small distribution is designed for a 16-item Q sample and therefore contains 16 slots to be filled

For participants to provide their subjective viewpoint toward a specific topic in the form of a Q sort, researchers need to construct the data collection instrument, called Q sample. Such a set of stimulus items is a representative sample from all possible items concerning the topic, which in the technical language in Q methodology is called concourse (Brown, 1980 ). The development of such a concourse about the topic at hand might stem from a wide range of sources, including academic literature, policy documents, informal discussions, or media (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). Moreover, in a participatory research fashion, participants’ statements can be used verbatim to populate the concourse. This way, children’s own words and voices are part of the data collection instrument. A sophisticated structuring process then guides the researchers in selecting a Q sample from all initial statements in the concourse (Brown et al., 2019 ). In Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), a literature review on findings and definitions of bullying, stemming from qualitative and quantitative research, provided the initial concourse. A matrix consisting of different modes, types, and contexts of bullying supported the construction of the final Q sample.

As a student and assistant of Charles Spearman, Q’s inventor Stephenson was well-informed about R-methodological factor analysis based on correlating traits. The British physicist-psychologist however inverted the procedure and thereby suggested correlating persons to study human behavior (Stephenson, 1935 , 1953 ). A detailed description of the statistical procedure of Q factor analysis is outside the scope of this article, especially as the focus of this special issue is put on qualitative research methods. In addition, with its focus on producing quantifiable data from highly subjective viewpoints (Duncan & Owens, 2011 ), it is safe to say that Q methodology is more often treated as a qualitative methodology with quantitative features than the other way around. Nevertheless, it is important to note that through factor analysis, individual viewpoints are clustered into so-called factors, representing shared viewpoints if they sufficiently correlate (see Fig.  3 ). In that sense, no outside criterion is applied to respondents’ subjective views and groups of similar sorts (factors/viewpoints) are not logically constructed by researchers. Instead, they inductively emerge through quantitative analysis, which helps “in learning how the subject, not the observer, understands and reacts to items” (Brown, 1980 , p. 191). This procedure allowed Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ) to describe two age-related definitions of bullying. Older students in particular perceived offline bullying as more severe than online bullying and their younger peers were mostly concerned about bullying situations taking place in a private setting.

A simplified illustration of Q factor analysis (step 5). Arrow A represents the statistical correlation of all collected individual viewpoints. Arrow B represents inverted factor analysis as the data condensation technique resulting in a manageable number of shared viewpoints

Despite its quantitative analysis, participant selection in Q methodology is largely in line with purposive sampling with small numbers. It, therefore, represents a major difference to R methodological research, where larger opportunity samples are desired. In Q methodology, participants are selected strategically in line with those who might likely “express a particularly interesting or pivotal point of view” (Watts & Stenner, 2012 , p. 71). Investigating a large number of similar respondents might therefore simply lead to more participants correlating with the same shared viewpoint and not necessarily add new viewpoints. In recent educational Q research, the average number of participants is 37 (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). Many studies have however been successfully conducted with considerably fewer, as for example illustrated by Benmore et al. ( 2018 ), who described three distinctive groups within their sample of 12 participants.

To illustrate Q methodology in bullying research, our small scale and exploratory study published in Educational Research (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ) serves as a practical example. The purpose of that study was to investigate definitions of bullying from young people’s perspectives and was guided by the following research question: What are students’ subjective viewpoints on bullying behavior? . In Table 1 , we describe the methodological steps introduced in Fig.  1 .

Q Methodology’s Response to the Methodological Issues Outlined Above

Above, methodological issues have been structured according to participants’ willingness and ability to share their subjective viewpoints and lived experiences. In order to respond to those, the present section focuses on Q methodology’s built-in features. A particularly important component is Q sorting as the central data collection technique that facilitates participants’ communicability of their subjectivity.

Engaging participants in a card sorting activity encourages students to express their viewpoints and thereby making their voices heard in a less-intrusive way, despite being cognitively engaging. Because they are asked to rank-order a predetermined sample of items, ideally in accordance with a carefully selected condition of instruction, they do not need to report or disclose their own personal experiences and are not obliged to actively create anything, as criticized in arts-based research. In that sense, Q methodology can be seen as a method to collect sensitive data in a more depersonalized way. This provides the basis to find a vital “balance between protecting the child and at the same time allowing access to important information” (Thorsen & Størksen, 2010 , p. 9), which is of particular importance for research about emotionally charged situations or sensitive topics as it is often the case with bullying (Ellingsen et al., 2014 ). Sharing their view through a fixed collection of items certainly makes participation in research for young children or otherwise hard-to-reach respondents less intimidating and results can be expected to be more truthful.

In comparison to researchers applying ethnographical approaches, who immerse themselves into the studied context to understand and document patterns of social behavior and interaction in a less intrusive way, Q methodologists are not expected to observe their participants. Even though the purpose of these approaches is different, being part of the culture under investigation or at least involving community partners in Q methodological research can still be useful for at least two reasons. As mentioned in Table 1 featuring the study by Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), the pupils’ physical education and health teacher guided an exploratory and informal discussion and thereby provided valuable insights into the participants’ lifeworld that informed the Q sample. In addition to better tailoring the sample to the participants and making them feel seen and heard, the community partner could help build a positive rapport between participants and researchers, which otherwise requires much work. During the actual data collection exercise, participants were already familiar with the topic, well-informed about the research project, and perceived the sorting activity as an integral part of their lesson.

The play-like character of Q sorting has as well been reported as a positive influence on respondents’ motivation to participate (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ) and Wright ( 2013 ) mentions the engaging atmosphere created between the sorter and the researcher. The combination of these features allows assuming that obtaining participants’ viewpoint through Q methodology is less threatening than for example sitting in front of an interviewer and providing on-spot oral responses about a sensitive topic.

Q sorting as a data collection instrument represents a major advantage for Q methodological research with participants that do not (yet) possess sufficient verbal literacy and/or cognitive ability to process receptive or expressive language. To illustrate, two features are outlined here: first the flexibility of the Q sample, say the set of stimuli and second the fact that primary data collection in Q methodology is based on a silent activity.

Written statements are undoubtedly the most common type of items used in Q methodology and the number of such in a Q sample greatly varies. In recent research reporting from compulsory education settings, the average Q sample consists of about 40 items (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). In addition to applying a smaller set of items, their complexity can easily be adapted in line with participants’ receptive literacy skills and their developmental stage to facilitate understanding. Statements can for example be shortened or they can start identically to make the activity less taxing (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). A different approach to cater to limited verbal literacy is the use of images instead of written statements. Constructing a visual Q sample might be more challenging for the researcher, in particular, if images are carefully selected and culturally tailored, meaning that they are clear, appealing and without too many details (Thorsen & Størksen, 2010 ). It might nevertheless be worth it, as such items provide a powerful tool to elicit viewpoints from otherwise marginalized or hard-to-reach research participants. Combes and colleagues ( 2004 ) for example, created a 37-item-Q sample with intellectually disabled participants’ own pictures to evaluate the planning of activities and de Leeuw et al. ( 2019 ) have used 15 images of hypothetical scenarios of social exclusion in a study with primary school pupils. Furthermore, as illustrated by Allgood and Svennungsen ( 2008 ) who photographed their participant’s own sculptures, Q samples consisting of objects (e.g., toys) or symbols (emojis) might be other options to investigate issues about bullying and cyberbullying without using text.

In addition to adaptations to the data collection instrument, the sorting process is usually carefully introduced and illustrated. Researchers might want to go through the entire Q sample to ensure the participants are able to discriminate each item (Combes et al., 2004 ). Even with adult participants without any cognitive impairments, it is suggested to pre-sort items into three provisional categories (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). Two categories represent the respective ends of the continuum in the distribution grid and might be labeled and. Any items the sorter feels insecure or neutral about, are moved to the third category, which receives a question mark (?) for the sake of this exercise. During the actual rank-ordering process, the participants start to allocate items to one of the ends of the continuum (the top of the distribution grid in Fig.  2 ) with cards from the ☺ category and work themselves toward the center of the distribution grid. The process continues with items in the ☹ category, which are placed from the opposite end of the continuum toward the center. Any free spots are then filled with the remaining items in the (?) category. The graphic display of their viewpoint has been experienced as enabling for self-reflection (Combes et al., 2004 ) and might be utilized for a further discussion about the topic, for example as part of teacher workshops (Ey & Spears, 2020 ).

Meeting children at an appropriate cognitive level through adaptations of the data collection instrument and procedure, is not only a promising and important ethical decision in order to show young participants the respect they deserve (Thorsen & Størsken, 2010 ), but makes the sorting procedure a pleasant experience for the participants (John et al., 2014 ). Unsurprisingly, Q methodology has been described as a respectful, person-centered, and therefore child-friendly approach (Hughes, 2016 ).

Limitations

Despite its potential for bullying research, Q methodology has its limitations. The approach is still relatively unknown in the field of bullying research and academic editors’ and reviewers’ limited familiarity with it can make publishing Q methodological research challenging. Notwithstanding the limitation of not being based on a worked example, the contribution of the present paper hopefully fulfills some of the needed spadework toward greater acceptability within and beyond a field, which has only seen a limited number of Q methodological research studies. Because the careful construction of a well-balanced Q sample is time-consuming and prevents spontaneous research activities, a core set of items could be created to shorten the research process and support the investigation of what bullying means to particular groups of people. Such a Q sample would then have to be culturally tailored to fit local characteristics. Finally, the present paper is limited in our non-comprehensive selection of data collection methods as points of comparison when arguing for a more intensive focus on Q methodology for bullying research.

Future Research Directions

The results of Q methodological studies based on culturally tailored core Q samples would allow the emergence of local definitions connected to the needs of the immediate society or school context. As illustrated by Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), even within the same school context, and with the same data collection instrument (Q sample), Q methodology yielded different, age-related definitions of bullying. Or in Wester and Trepal ( 2004 ), Q methodological analysis revealed more perceptions and opinions about bullying than researchers usually mention. Hence, Q methodology offers a robust and strategic approach that can foreground cultural contexts and local definitions of bullying. If desired, exploratory small-scale Q research might later be validated through large-scale investigations. A further direction for future research in the field of bullying research is connected to the great potential of visual Q samples to further minimize research participation restrictions for respondents with limited verbal or cognitive abilities.

Implications for Practice

When designing future bullying prevention strategies, Q methodology presents a range of benefits to take into consideration. The approach offers a robust way to collect viewpoints about bullying without asking participants to report their own experiences. The highly flexible sorting activity further represents a method to investigate bullying among groups that are underrepresented in bullying research, such as preschool children (Camodeca & Coppola, 2016 ). This is of great importance, as tackling bullying at an early age can prevent its escalation (Alsaker & Valkanover, 2001 ; Storey & Slaby, 2013 ). Making the voices of the hard-to-reach heard in an unrestricted way and doing research with them instead of about them (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ; Goopy & Kassan, 2019 ) is expected to enable them to be part of discussions about their own well-being. By incorporating social media platforms, computer games, or other contextually important activities when designing a Q sample, the sorting of statements in Hellström & Lundberg, ( 2020 ) turned into a highly relevant activity, clearly connected to the reality of the students. As a consequence, resulting policy creation processes based on such exploratory studies should lead to more effective interventions and bullying prevention programs confirming the conclusion by Ey and Spears ( 2020 ) that Q methodology served as a great model to develop and implement context-specific programs. Due to the enhanced accountability and involvement of children’s own voices, we foresee a considerable increase in implementation and success rates of such programs. Moreover, Q methodology has been suggested as an effective technique to evaluate expensive anti-bullying interventions (Benmore et al., 2018 ). Generally, research results based on exploratory Q methodology that quantitatively condensates rich data and makes commonalities and diversities among participants emerge through inverted factor analysis are expected to be useful for educators and policymakers aiming to create a safe learning environment for all children. At the same time, Q methodology does not only provide an excellent ground for participatory research, but is also highly cost-efficient due to its status as a small-sample approach. This might be particularly attractive, when neither time nor resources for other less-intrusive methodological approaches, such as for example ethnography, are available. Due to its highly engaging aspect and great potential for critical personal reflection, Q sorting might be applied in classes regardless of representing a part of a research study or simply as a learning tool (Duncan & Owens, 2011 ). Emerging discussions are expected to facilitate and mediate crucial dialogs and lead toward collective problem-solving among children.

The use of many different terminologies and different cultural understandings, including meaning, comprehension, and operationalization, indicates that bullying is a concept that is difficult to define and subject to cultural influences. For the purpose of designing relevant and powerful bullying prevention strategies, this paper argues that instead of pursuing a universal definition of what constitutes bullying, it may be of greater importance to investigate culturally and contextually bound understandings and definitions of bullying. Although the quest for cultural and contextual bound definitions is not new in bullying research, this paper offers an additional method, Q methodology, to capture participants’ subjective views and voices. Since particularly the marginalized and vulnerable participants, for example, bullying victims, are usually hard to reach, bullying researchers might benefit from a methodological repertoire enriched with a robust approach that is consistent with changes in methodological and epistemological thinking in the field. In this paper, we have argued that built-in features of Q methodology respond to perennial challenges in bullying research connected to a lack of willingness and limited ability to share among participants as well as studying bullying as a culturally sensitive topic. In summary, we showcased how Q methodology allows a thorough and less-intrusive investigation of what children perceive to be bullying and believe that Q methodology may open up novel possibilities for contemporary bullying researchers through its status as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches.

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Change history, 18 july 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00135-9

Acquadro Maran, D., & Begotti, T. (2021). Measurement ideas relevant to qualitative studies. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Editors). Handbook of bullying (no pages assigned yet). John Wiley & Sons Limited.

Allgood, E., & Svennungsen, H. O. (2008). Toward an articulation of trauma using the creative arts and Q-methodology: A single-case study. Journal of Human Subjectivity, 6 (1), 5–24.

Google Scholar  

Alsaker, F. D., & Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 175–195). Guilford Press.

Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms.  Problems of Education in the 21st Century ,  13 (1), 13–38.

Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9 (5), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, J., & Weller, S. (2003). “Is it fun?” Developing children centred research methods. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23 (1/2), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790435

Benmore, G., Henderson, S., Mountfield, J., & Wink, B. (2018). The Stopit! programme to reduce bullying and undermining behaviour in hospitals: Contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 32 (3), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-02-2018-0047

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bosacki, S. L., Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Pictorial and narrative representations of children’s bullying experiences. Journal of Moral Education, 35 , 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240600681769

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087929

Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science . Yale University Press.

Brown, S. (2006). A match made in heaven: A marginalized methodology for studying the marginalized. Quality and Quantity, 40 (3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8828-2

Brown, S., Baltrinic, E., & Jencius, M. (2019) From concourse to Q sample to testing theory. Operant Subjectivity, 41 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.002

Camodeca, M., & Coppola, G. (2016). Bullying, empathic concern, and internalization of rules among preschool children: The role of emotion understanding. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40 , 459–465.

Choi, J. K., & Lee, B. S. (2019). Response patterns of nursing unit managers regarding workplace bullying: A Q methodology approach. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 49 , 562–574.

Combes, H., Hardy, G., & Buchan, L. (2004). Using Q-methodology to involve people with intellectual disability in evaluating person-centred planning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17 , 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00191.x

Compier-de Block, L. H., Alink, L. R., Linting, M., van den Berg, L. J., Elzinga, B. M., Voorthuis, A., Tollenaar, M. S., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2017). Parent-child agreement on parent-to-child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 32 , 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9902-3

Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. School Psychology International, 21 , 79–95.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 rd ed.). Sage.

Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2009). Hear no evil, see no evil? Associations of gender, trauma history, and values with believing trauma vignettes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9 (1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01185.x

De Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., Beckmann, E. J., van Exel, J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2019). Young children’s perspectives on resolving social exclusion within inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 98 , 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.009

De Leeuw, R. R., Little, C., & Rix, J. (2020). Something needs to be said – Some thoughts on the possibilities and limitations of ‘voice.’ International Journal of Educational Research, 104 , 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101694

Duncan, N., & Owens, L. (2011). Bullying, social power and heteronormativity: Girls’ constructions of popularity. Children & Society, 25 , 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00378.x

Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M., Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621420

Ellingsen, I. T., Thorsen, A. A., Størksen, I. (2014). Revealing children’s experiences and emotions through.  Q Methodology Child Development Research, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/910529

Eriksen, M. I., & Lyng, S. T. (2018). Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education, 30 (3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1214691

Ey, L., & Spears, B. (2020). Engaging early childhood teachers in participatory co-design workshops to educate young children about bullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 38 , 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2020.1788129

Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 5 , 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v05n03_04

Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9 , 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8

Goopy, S., & Kassan, A. (2019). Arts-based engagement ethnography: An approach for making research engaging and knowledge transferable when working with harder-to-reach communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918820424

Hellström, L. (2019). A systematic review of polyvictimization among children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity or Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (13), 2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132280

Hellström, L. & Lundberg, A. (2020). Understanding bullying from young people’s perspectives: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 62 (4), 414-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1821388

Hellström, L., Persson, L. & Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying– adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health 73 (4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-73-4

Hill, M. (2006). Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood, 13 (1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568206059972

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64 (1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598917

Hughes, M. (2016). Critical, respectful, person-centred: Q methodology for educational psychologists. Educational and Child Psychology, 33 (1), 63–75.

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37 (4), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

Hutson, E. (2018). Integrative review of qualitative research on the emotional experience of bullying victimization in youth. Journal of School Nursing, 34 (1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517740192

Jacobs, N., Goossens, L., Dehue, F., Völlink, T., & Lechner, L. (2015). Dutch cyberbullying victims’ experiences, perceptions, attitudes and motivations related to (coping with) cyberbullying: Focus group interviews. Societies, 5 (1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5010043

Jia, M., & Mikami, A. (2018). Issues in the assessment of bullying: Implications for conceptualizations and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41 , 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.004

John, A., Montgomery, D., & Halliburton Tate, A. (2014). Using Q methodology in conducting research with young children. In O. Saracho (Editor): Handbook of Research Methods in Early Childhood Education , Volume 1, (pp. 147–173), University of Maryland.

Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920922765

Kulig, J. C., Hall, B., & Grant Kalischuk, R. (2008). Bullying perspectives among rural youth: A mixed methods approach. Rural and Remote Health, 8 , 1–11.

Lyon, D., & Carabelli, G. (2016). Researching young people’s orientations to the future: The methodological challenges of using arts practice. Qualitative Research, 16 (4), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115587393

Lundberg, A., de Leeuw, R., & Aliani R. (2020). Using Q methodology: sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review, 31 , 100361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100361

Modin, B. (2012). Beteendeproblem bidrar till utsatthet för mobbning och psykisk ohälsa. I: Skolans betydelse för barns och ungas psykiska hälsa - en studie baserad på den nationella totalundersökningen i årskurs 6 och 9 hösten 2009 behavior problems contribute to victimization from bullying and poor self-related mental health. in: The role of the school for young people’s mental health. A study based on the national Swedish survey of students in grades 6 and 9 in 2009. ( No. 2012–5–15). National Board of Health and Welfare and Centre for Health Equity Studies.

Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X82352

O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 1984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015588502

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20 , 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002166442

Punch, S. (2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9 (3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003005

Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, R. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3 (9), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1017

Scheithauer, H., Smith, P. K., & Samara, M. (2016). Cultural issues in bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents: Methodological approaches for comparative research. International Journal of Developmental Science 10 , 3–8.  https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-16000085

Scherer, L. (2016). Children’s engagements with visual methods through qualitative research in the primary school as “Art that didn’t work.” Sociological Research Online, 21 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3805

Shaghaghi, A., Bhopal, R. S., & Sheikh, A. (2011). Approaches to recruiting ‘hard to reach’ populations into research: A review of the literature. Health Promotion Perspectives, 1 , 86–94. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2011.009

Shemmings, D., & Ellingsen, I. T. (2012). Using Q methodology in qualitative interviews. In J.F. Gubrium, J.A. Holstein, A.B. Marvasti, & K.D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2 nd ed), (pp. 415–426). Sage.

Slaughter, V., Dennis, M. J., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20 , 545–564.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen–country international comparison. Child Development 73 (4): 1119–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Smith, P. K., Robinson, S., & Marchi, B. (2016). Cross-national data on victims of bullying: What is really being measured? International Journal of Developmental Science, 10 (1–2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-150174

Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136 , 297.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago University Press.

Storey, K., & Slaby, R. (2013). Eyes on bullying in early childhood. Education Development Center. Retrieved from www.eyesonbullying.org

Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization. The problem of comparability across studies and across methodologies. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp 305- 328). Routledge

Sydor, A. (2013). Conducting research into hidden or hard-to-reach populations. Nurse Researcher, 20 , 33–37.

Thorsen, A. A., & Størksen, I. (2010). Ethical, methodological, and practical reflections when using Q methodology in research with young children. Operant Subjectivity, 33 (1–2), 3–25.

Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27 , 16–21.

Vacchelli, E. (2018). Embodiment in qualitative research: Collage making with migrant, refugee and asylum seeking women. Qualitative Research, 18 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447339069.003.0004

Waters, E., Stewart-Brown, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2003). Agreement between adolescent self-report and parent reports of health and well-being: Results of an epidemiological study. Child Care Health Development, 29 , 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00370.x

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation . Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wester, K. L., & Trepal, H. C. (2004). Youth perceptions of bullying: Thinking outside the box. Operant Subjectivity, 27 , 68–83.

Woodhead, M., & Faulkner, D. (2008). Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological research. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children (2nd ed., pp. 10–39). Routledge.

Wright, P. N. (2013). Is Q for you?: Using Q methodology within geographical and pedagogical research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37 (2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.729814

Download references

Open access funding provided by Malmö University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

Adrian Lundberg & Lisa Hellström

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Lundberg .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: References are not in alphabetical order.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lundberg, A., Hellström, L. Q Methodology as an Innovative Addition to Bullying Researchers’ Methodological Repertoire. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 209–219 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00127-9

Download citation

Accepted : 26 April 2022

Published : 11 May 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00127-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bullying prevention
• Children’s voice
• Hard-to-reach
• Methodological issues
• Q methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research