Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbse20

Download by: [University of Michigan] Date: 12 January 2017, At: 07:08

British Journal of Sociology of Education

ISSN: 0142-5692 (Print) 1465-3346 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Problems with the Paradigm: The school as afactor in understanding bullying (with specialreference to Japan)

Shoko Yoneyama & Asao Naito

To cite this article: Shoko Yoneyama & Asao Naito (2003) Problems with the Paradigm: Theschool as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan), British Journal ofSociology of Education, 24:3, 315-330, DOI: 10.1080/01425690301894

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690301894

Published online: 28 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 834

View related articles

Citing articles: 43 View citing articles

British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2003

Problems with the Paradigm: the school as a factor inunderstanding bullying (with special reference to Japan)

SHOKO YONEYAMA, Centre for Asian Studies, University of Adelaide, Australia

ASAO NAITO, School of Arts and Letters, Meiji University, Japan

ABSTRACT Studies on bullying at school proliferate, but the discourse is seriously lacking in sociological

perspective. The explanation as to why some students bully others has been sought primarily within the

personal attributes of the bully and the victim. Despite the fact that the school is the place where most

bullying occurs, school factors that are correlated with the prevalence of bullying have been under-inves-

tigated. In Japan, however, schools have been subject to great scrutiny. By reviewing the Japanese

literature on bullying (ijime), this paper discusses factors that appear to contribute to the school climate

in which bullying among students becomes commonplace. These include authoritarian, hierarchical, and

power-dominant human relationships, alienating modes of learning, high levels of regimentation,

dehumanising methods of discipline, and highly interventionist human relationships in an excessively

group-oriented social environment. The paper suggests the paradigm of student bullying needs to be

re-thought.

Overview: Bullying as an Individualised Social Issue

Bullying and victimisation of school students [1] is a relatively new area of inquiry,

despite the large number of studies currently available. Even in Norway where pioneer-

ing work existed (Olweus, 1973; in Swedish), it was not until 1982 with the suicide of

three victims that bullying was recognised as a social issue (Olweus, 1993). Likewise,

bullying was first identified as a serious social problem in Japan in 1984 and 1985, when

16 pupils committed suicide in circumstances suspected of victimisation (Morita et al.,

1999a), which was followed by the publication of the first scholarly work on the issue

(Morita & Kiyonaga, 1986). In the UK also, it was with the publication of the first book

on the problem (Tattum & Lane, 1988) that bullying was established as an independent

area of social and scholarly inquiry (Tattum & Herbert, 1993). The situation was more

or less the same in other parts of Europe. It has been pointed out that, as at 1987, ‘the

UK was not alone in failing to take bullying seriously’ (Tattum & Herbert, 1993, p. 2).

Although there might be some features specific to a particular society (for example,

Morita et al., 1999a), there seems a general agreement that bullying consists of several key

ISSN 0142-5692 (print)/ISSN 1465-3346 (online)/03/030315-16 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/0142569032000070137

316 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

elements (Farrington, 1993; Rigby, 2001). First, bullying is a type of aggressive behaviour

inflicted by an individual or group to cause fear, distress or harm to the victim (for

example, Roland, 1988, Olweus, 1993) based on a wilful and conscious desire to do so

(Tattum, 1988). It is the abuse of power (Smith & Sharp, 1994) committed by the

powerful when there is an imbalance of power (for example, Olweus, 1993), be it

physical, psychological or social. Thus, it is typically repeated over time (for example,

Roland, 1988; Olweus, 1993) and felt to be oppressive by the victim (Farrington, 1993)

who is unable to defend herself/himself (for example, Roland, 1988).

Numerous epidemiological and morphological studies have been conducted all over

the world to provide reliable and detailed descriptions of bullying and victimisation

among school students (for example, Smith et al., 1999). As a consequence, massive data

have been accumulated on such aspects as prevalence, frequency, intensity, duration,

place of occurrence, sex differences, different forms and methods of bullying (physical,

verbal and relational), behavioural traits of bullies, victims, and bully/victims, and so on.

As to the causation of bullying, however, further research is needed. The explanation

of why some students bully others has been sought primarily by examining the personal

attributes of the bully and the victim, and their family and social backgrounds. External

factors that have been examined as potential causes of bullying include negative relations

with parents and a cold emotional climate at home (Olweus, 1980; Rigby, 1993, 1994;

Bowers et al., 1994), and exposure to violence and racial prejudice in the community

(Randall, 1996). Bullying among school students have been seen primarily as an issue

arising from factors external to and independent of school life.

Thus, school factors that are correlated with the prevalence of bullies and victims have

been under-investigated (Farrington, 1993; Wolke et al., 2001). As yet there has been few

studies focusing clearly on fundamental aspects of school, such as student–teacher

relationships, the quality of teaching and learning, and the methods of discipline

contributing to bullying among students. This has been the case despite the fact that the

school is the place where most of the bullying occurs (for example, Olweus, 1993), and

that there can be a significant difference in bullying/victimisation between different

schools (Rigby, 1996; Rivers & Soutter, 1996).

The insufficient attention paid to the school context in the discourse on student

bullying is part of a larger trend in the discourse on student aggression in general. Most

intervention programs dealing with aggressive behaviour have focused on changing the

characteristics peculiar to ‘at-risk students’ and have failed to address the larger social

context, including that of the school (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999). Aspects of the school

context such as the nature of academic instruction, classroom management and disci-

pline, and the nature of social interaction all deserve greater attention, either as

contributing factors or in preventative measures (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999).

A Sociological Framework for Understanding Bullying and Victimisation in

Schools

In terms of the sociological study of bullying, the most fundamental finding so far is that

bullying is widely prevalent among school students (Tattum & Herbert, 1993; Rigby &

Slee, 1995; Morita et al., 1999b). Normally in sociology a wide prevalence of a problem

is regarded as a social issue, worth examining as a potentially structural problem inherent

in the particular social milieu. If it is a structural problem, there is a limit to what

individuals can do to solve their everyday-life trouble: fundamental solution comes with

the revision and change of the social structure itself (Mills, 1970). In view of the extent

Understanding Bullying 317

of prevalence of the issue, the structural perspective appears underdeveloped in the

discourse on bullying.

Although Goffman (1968) does not specifically address educational settings, his

concept of ‘total institution’ is highly relevant to understand certain aspects of school

(Beynon, 1985), especially the one based on the traditional, non-democratic paradigm of

education. Like asylums, prisons and military establishments, schools are a social

institution based on hierarchical and authoritarian relationships with clear division of

socially defined roles. They are a bureaucratic organisation supported by rituals,

disciplinary measures and punishment, which may involve the use of physical power. As

an institution, schools have the socially defined goal of educating and socialising youth.

Conformity and low tolerance to individual differences can be intrinsic to school life (for

example, Beynon, 1985).

The commonality between schools and ‘total institutions’ provides the framework to

think about the possibility that certain aspects of school can actually cultivate bullying.

Tattum, for instance, remarks that schools ‘are not closed, military establishment but

they are authoritarian, and boys’ schools in particular do create an aggressive atmos-

phere which may be seen to condone pupil-pupil aggression’ (1988, p. 13). Similarly,

Smith & Sharp (1994) point out that bullying ‘is particularly likely to be a problem in

social groups with clear power relationships and low supervision, such as the armed

forces, prisons, and also schools’ (p. 2). The possibility of bullying being institutionalised

behaviour has been discussed by Askew, who argues that ‘bullying is partly an outcome

of the structure and organisation of schools themselves’ (1988, p. 69). More specifically,

schools are authoritarian structures that include blaming, punitive, and disciplinary

approach based on the use of aggression, power, and control; as well as a hierarchical

and competitive ethos (as against caring ethos) that has little room for vulnerability.

The literature on disruptive behaviour among school students, which was extensive by

the mid-1980s, had hardly addressed bullying (Tattum & Herbert, 1993). It suggests,

however, that certain aspects of school are likely to generate bullying among school

students. McGuiness & Craggs (1986) remark that the initial emphasis of the literature

on disruptive behaviour was to link the problem with factors outside school. After

reviewing substantial numbers of research, however, they conclude that ‘problems of

behaviour are firmly set within the social context of the school’, and that ‘school ethos

is a major contributory influence on pupil behaviour’ (p. 15). The solution they propose

in order to lessen disruptive behaviour, therefore, is to improve the whole-school ethos,

by reviewing curriculum to enhance students’ dignity, as well as by improving interper-

sonal skills among teachers and the quality of interaction between student and teacher.

The results of research on disruptive behaviour are reflected to some extent in the

teacher-initiated, whole-school, anti-bullying measures adopted by some schools (Tattum

& Herbert, 1993). They include reassessment of school management and human

relationships in school from the viewpoint of Equal Opportunity (Elkins, 1993); and a

whole-staff, developmental approach to build positive human relationships geared towards

understanding and tolerance. It is reported that such attempts have helped develop

positive staff–pupil relationships, which inevitably had an impact upon the curriculum,

the way it was delivered and its content (Davies, 1993). These examples indicate that

schools can play a crucial role in reducing bullying in society, instead of providing a

social environment hospitable to victimisation (Askew, 1988). Through the critical

assessment of the hidden curriculum and underlying ideology, schools can very well be

an agent for social change (Giroux, 1983).

The sociological perspective of bullying outlined, however, has been extremely low

318 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

key, whether or not it be a result of a deliberate strategy to involve schools in the

anti-bullying campaign. Furthermore, Tattum (1993) remarks, referring to the situation

in the UK by the early 1990s, that many schools deny the fact that bullying exist in

school and adopt a ‘crisis management’ approach when necessary, instead of recognising

that bullying exist in every school and developing a pro-active, ‘developmental’ ap-

proach. As pointed out earlier, the analysis of the relationship between bullying and

school is seriously lacking in the discourse of bullying in general. It has not gone much

beyond analysis into such things as school size and location (for example, Wolke et al.,

2001).

There is also a question of how much teachers can do when they themselves have to

work within a hierarchical, power-dominant management structure. Teachers can very

well be caught by the contradictory demand to play the role of the teacher in a restrictive

organisational structure while at the same time being expected to reduce bullying among

students. The sociological perspective will help pursue this question and tackle the

problem of bullying at its core. With this aim, the present paper first reviews the school

factors mentioned, albeit peripherally, in the existing literature on bullying. It then

introduces the discourse on bullying in Japan, which has been more clearly focused than

any other on analysing the relationship between school factors and peer victimisation.

School Factors in the Literature on Student Bullying in English

In the past two decades, researchers working on the problem of bullying among school

students have mentioned some school-related factors, although never as the focus of a

study. Rigby (1997) found that a high prevalence of a ‘culture of bullying’ distinguished

high-bullying schools from low-bullying schools. He remarks that uncertainty and

hesitancy on the part of teachers to intervene may contribute to the pro-bullying school

ethos (Rigby, 1996). Likewise, Stephenson & Smith (1989) showed that schools with head

teachers who understand bullying and can articulate their views on it tend to experience

less bullying. Drawing upon a study conducted in the Netherlands (Rutter et al., 1986),

Junger-Tas suggests that bullying takes place less in an ‘effective school’. In such a school

there is ‘a school-wide set of standards or norms of school performance and behavior; an

acceptance by pupils of these norms, and a positive teacher response to good pupil

behavior and achievements’ (Junger-Tas, 1999).

The student–teacher relationship has also been discussed as a potential factor in

student bullying, but only incidentally. The potential for the behaviour of a teacher to

be a model for students has been briefly mentioned: students may admire the effective,

authoritarian teacher and use him/her as a model to victimise fellow students (Rigby,

1996). On the other hand, teachers who are either too strict or unable to keep order in

the classroom could cause pupils to dislike school, which may lead to an increase in

aggressive behaviour, such as peer bullying (Olweus, 1999; Junger-Tas, 1999). Some

teachers may deliberately lead children into bullying (Rigby, 1996); or a teacher’s

negative attitude towards a student may provide the excuse for others to victimise

him/her (Olweus, 1999). The use of sarcasm and subtle forms of ridicule by teachers

may also contribute to classroom bullying (Rigby, 1996). Despite the amount of

conjecture, no study has clearly focused on the question of how (or whether) student–

teacher relationships may affect bullying behaviour among students.

There is also a more sensitive issue of student bullying by teachers. Conducting the

first scientific investigation of this topic (in Norway in 1996), Olweus (1999) found that

some 2% of 2400 primary and lower middle school students had been bullied by

Understanding Bullying 319

teachers, as many as 10% of the teachers had bullied students, and bullying by teachers

had occurred in about 50% of the classes investigated. Bjorkqvist & Osterman (1999)

have pointed out the growing awareness of this issue in Finland in the past decade. Again

the question is how (or whether) student bullying by teachers increases the possibility of

student-to-student bullying.

Learning is the facet of school life to which least attention has been paid in the

discourse of student bullying. Rigby (1996) suggests that boredom, as the result of

inappropriate subject content, inadequate teaching methodology, or poorly motivated

teachers, may be an important cause of bullying. Others have suggested that academic

competition could be a potential cause of bullying. A sense of being ‘a loser’ could

provide an excuse to vent frustration on other students, or a sense of failure and lowered

self-esteem could also make one an easy target for bullying. The ‘winners’ of the

competition, on the other hand, may become arrogant and bully the weak (Rigby, 1996).

Olweus (1993) investigated the hypothesis that aggression in boys is a consequence of

poor grades or failure at school: the hypothesis was unsupported.

Thus, potential causal links between certain features of school and student bullying

have been suggested by many, yet most are little more than passing remarks. The

question as to which features of school may be related to student bullying has not been

systematically addressed in the discourse on student bullying in English.

The situation is slightly different in Japan. Although the empirical research addressing

the causal link is limited, there is substantial literature in Japanese that suggests that the

sociological milieu of the school is a major factor underlying student bullying. The

present paper reviews such literature, and clarifies which aspects of school have been

considered relevant. First, however, characteristics of student bullying in Japanese schools

today will be discussed.

Characteristics of Student Bullying in Japan

The Japanese word for bullying, ‘ijime’, is defined by Morita as:

[a] type of aggressive behavior by which someone who holds a dominant

position in a group-interaction process, by intentional or collective acts, causes

mental and/or physical suffering to another inside a group. (Morita et al.,

1999a, p. ?)

As this definition clearly indicates, the most outstanding characteristic of ijime is that it

is mostly group bullying (for example, Morita & Kiyonaga, 1994; Sugeno, 1997; Morita

et al., 1999b). The 1997 data by Morita et al., show that only about 20% of bullying was

carried out singly, and that 40% of these instances lasted for more than 1 week (Morita

et al., 1999b). If ‘more than a week’ is taken as a benchmark for frequent bullying, this

means that a single bully commits around 8% of frequent bullying in Japan, substantially

less than the comparable data available elsewhere [2]. A Norwegian study found that a

single bully committed some 35–40% of frequent bullying (Olweus, 1993). An Australian

study of secondary students found that 61% of frequent bullying against a male victim,

and 44% against a female victim, were committed by a single bully (Rigby, 1996).

Group bullying often involves the whole class, and is typically supported by a

‘four-layered structure’ of victim, bullies, spectators, and bystanders (Morita & Kiyonaga,

1994). The ‘group dynamics’ function is the key to exacerbating bullying. It has been

found that the more frequent the bullying is, the longer it tends to last (Morita et al.,

1999b); and that the more persistent the bullying is, the larger the number of students

320 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

involved (Morita et al., 1999b). As one student remarks: ‘the more audience there is, the

more ferocious bullying becomes’ (Toyoda, 1995). Although bullying that involves the

whole class is not unique to Japanese schools (see Olweus, 1993), the fact that it is one

of the most common forms of bullying in Japan is noteworthy. It is also notable that in

Japan classroom (and not schoolyard) is the main venue of peer victimisation, where

some 75% of bullying among school students occurs (Morita et al., 1999b). It is therefore

uncommon for the bully to belong to a higher grade than the victim (Morita et al.,

1999a).

When the group dynamics does not involve the whole class, the victimisation often

occurs within a small group of close friends (Morita et al., 1999a). In a situation where

every student in the class belongs to a small circle of friends, to be bullied within the

group creates a really difficult situation. For fear of being isolated in the class, the victim

clings to the group despite being bullied, trapping himself/herself into victimisation. This

form of bullying is quite different from the one often seen outside Japan, which involves

perpetrators who are not in the victim’s friendship circle.

At the same time, bullying in Japanese schools often involves ‘ordinary’ and ‘good’

students both as victim and bully (Morita & Kiyonaga, 1994). The profile of the bully

does not remain the same (i.e. different students victimise others at different points in

time; National Institute for Educational Policy Research of Japan, 2001). There is a

temptation to put this in contrast with the image of a perpetrator outside Japan, where

the bully is often depicted as an aggressive macho man, most probably a ‘problem kid’

or ‘at risk’ student towering over a helpless small boy. The fact that a ‘bullying career’

is often connected to the ‘criminal career’ also suggests the same; that is, fixed role as an

aggressor (for example, Farrington, 1993). However, the contrast may stem from

comparing different modes of bullying between different countries. Ijime can be very

violent, and can involve threat and extortion. Bullying, on the other hand, can be

psychological as well as physical, indirect as well as direct, relational as well as verbal.

This aspect requires further investigation.

The School Factor as Discussed in Japan

Stress: Achievement Pressure and the Meaninglessness of Study

The pressure of academic achievement is generally considered to be a factor closely

associated with bullying among school students (for example, Inamura, 1986; Takano,

1986; Nihon bengoshi renmei, 1995; Inoue, 1996; Kobayashi, 1996). There has been

little explanation, however, as to exactly how it works. There is only a vague expectation

that the pressure to study increases the level of stress, which drives some students into

aggressive behaviour; or that in order to escape from the anxiety associated with the

examination, some students may play power games against the weaker (Terumoto, 1996,

1997).

A social milieu that constantly pressures students to work hard and compete with each

other can very well be a source of stress. Theoretically speaking, however, there is no

inevitable connection between achievement pressure and stress, nor between stress and

bullying behaviour. Hence bullying is hardly a corollary of achievement pressure. In fact,

since the mid-1980s, each time the Japanese media reported the suicide of a bullied

student, the school the victim had attended was scrutinised. In few of these schools did

the pressure to achieve academically appear to be particularly high. If anything, it seems

that fewer cases of bullying occur in schools where students are clearly focused on study.

Understanding Bullying 321

If indeed there is an epistemological link between achievement pressure and bullying,

with stress as the medium, it is necessary to identify other factors that lead achievement

pressure to stress, on the one hand, and stress to bullying, on the other.

In fact, there is nothing inherently harmful or stress-inducing about achievement

pressure per se. It becomes stressful and problematic when there is a mismatch between

(1) achievement pressure felt by an individual student (through demands and expecta-

tions by others) and (2) the needs, abilities, values and resources the student can mobilise

to meet the pressure. What should be added to this equation is the quality of learning

associated with the achievement pressure. As generally understood, examination-oriented

curriculum and pedagogy in Japanese schools tend to be least student oriented, and

therefore inherently uninteresting to students. At the same time, the rapid pace of the

examination-oriented curriculum has produced a significant portion of students who

become unable to follow the class at an early stage (for example, Yoneyama, 1999).

Miyadai Shinji, a sociologist at Tokyo Metropolitan University, holds that with the

structural downturn of the Japanese economy, students have ceased to believe that ‘it

pays to endure boring classes at school in order to have a good job and a happy life in

future’. As a consequence, he asserts, study at school has become even less relevant to

students, a ‘mere drudgery’, a ‘completely meaningless time which seems to last forever’,

which can be passed only by bullying (Miyadai & Fujii, 1998).

No matter how stressful the situation is at school, however, that alone does not explain

bullying as normal and prevalent behaviour among ‘ordinary’ students. There must be

other factors that bridge stress and bullying. Stressful situations may lead to aggressive

behaviour when there is a social climate that encourages individuals to behave aggres-

sively as a stress coping mode. If there is any direct linkage between achievement

pressure and bullying, it is that ‘school ideology’ (i.e. the belief that one must attend

school no matter what) and the highly developed meritocratic system of Japan

(Yoneyama, 1999) bind the majority of youth to schools, where there is a social climate

conducive to cultivating bullying behaviour among students. The question is: what

constitutes the social climate in which bullying thrives in Japanese schools?

Power-Dominant Human Relationships

It has been pointed out by many that the nature of teacher–student relationships holds

the key to understanding student-to-student bullying in Japan (for example, Azuma et al.,

1986; Morita & Kiyonaga, 1994; Saito, 1996; Sugeno, 1997; Yoneyama, 1999). Based on

an empirical study involving 767 primary and secondary teachers, Hata (2000) concludes

that ‘teachers themselves provide the logic of ijime and the climate which approves ijime’,

and that ‘they create the social environment which induces ijime’ (p. 94). In his study, one

in three primary and one in four lower secondary school teachers indicated that what

they say or do to students ‘has significant bearing upon’ the bullying among students.

When combined with others who indicated that ‘it has some (as against ‘little’ or ‘no’)

bearing upon the bullying among students’, teachers who believed the causal relationship

amounted to 88 and 73%, respectively. More specifically, what aspects of a teacher’s

deeds might be associated with bullying among students?

The Teacher–Student Relationship as a Hidden Curriculum First, Hata (2000) points out that

practices commonly seen in teacher–student relationships would be considered bullying

in a different context. This includes calling students ‘You!’ (omae, kisama) or by their

surnames alone (as in ‘Suzuki!’), displays of favouritism, taking out anger on students, or

322 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

hurting students by words. Bullying of students by teachers has also been pointed out.

Hata found that 11–14% of teachers in primary and lower middle schools felt that they

had ‘bullied’ students either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ (as against ‘hardly’ or ‘never’).

Conversely, 11–15% of the students in the survey reported that they had been ‘bullied’

by teachers either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’. According to Hata (2000), peer bullying is more

likely to occur in a class where students feel that they have been bullied by teachers.

In other words, the teacher–student relationship can constitute a hidden curriculum

that promotes bullying among students. A more direct ‘copy-cat’ effect has also been

pointed out. A close resemblance has been shown to exist between the way a teacher

‘disciplines’ a student and the manner in which students victimise fellow students. These

include verbal expressions used to ‘put down’ students, norms against which students are

customarily judged, scolded and labelled (for example being selfish, egotistical, self-cen-

tered), and forms of physical violence with which corporal punishment is applied

(Yoneyama, 1999).

Others claim that teachers sometimes provide a reason for victimisation by fa-

vouritism, picking on or labelling a student (Morita & Kiyonaga, 1994; Sugeno, 1997).

Some teachers participate, approve or side with the bully, because putting themselves on

the side of the powerful students makes it easier for teachers to manage the class

(Yoneyama, 1999). Some teachers also avoid, ignore, or pretend not to notice bullying

among students (Yoneyama, 1999).

It has been pointed out by many that underlying the poor teacher–student relationship

is the fact that teachers rarely listen to students, despite the fact that willingness to listen

to students is generally considered to be essential by students (Yoneyama, 1999). There

is a clear tendency for peer victimisation to occur more frequently in a class where

teachers are less willing to listen to students (Hata, 2000). With little communication

between teachers and students, there is general lack of trust on the part of students about

their teachers (Yoneyama, 1999; Hata, 2000).

The Principle of Power It is widely believed in Japan that there is a strong association

between ‘corporal punishment’ (taibatsu) and peer bullying among students (Teshigahara,

1986; Kobayashi, 1995; Hata, 1996). The Japanese word taibatsu, which literally means

‘physical punishment’, is quite different from what is normally understood as corporal

punishment in the West where it is expected to be used only in a highly regulated

manner. Taibatsu often is nothing but an arbitrary use of violence by teachers. There

have been a number of cases in Japan where students have been injured or killed by

teachers in the name of corporal punishment. Even if the actual number of teachers who

use overt violence (such as hitting, slapping and kicking) may be limited, Japanese schools

are saturated with all sorts of ‘punishment’ that aim to inflict pain upon students

(Sakamoto, 1986). Moreover, teachers who use physical violence against students are

often incorporated as an essential part of the school management (Yoneyama, 1999).

The question is how deeply structural is the ‘unfair treatment of students by teachers’

in Japanese schools? As pointed out earlier, when teachers earnestly tackle the problem

of bullying, they often come to the realisation that they are indeed part of the structure

that encourages it (Umeno, 1998). Some teachers report that a breakthrough came in the

classroom discussion on bullying when students raised the issue of the conduct of

teachers. In one class, pupils suddenly became active in expressing themselves after the

teacher read out a student composition criticising teachers (Umeno, 1998, p. 43). In

another class, most students raised hands when asked: ‘Do you think that teachers and

school are part of the problem and are responsible for peer bullying among students?’

Understanding Bullying 323

One teacher writes that, after observing a number of classroom discussions on bullying,

he was overwhelmed by the feeling of mistrust towards teachers and school that was

shared by students. Umeno, who worked as a teacher for 7 years, remarks:

While disregarding our colleagues’ physical violence against students, we

preach the importance of human rights to students. After discussing the

nobility of The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we keep an eye out

for unauthorised ‘one-point’ socks [3] students might be wearing. While

ignoring student-to-student bullying ourselves, we accuse students for not

intervening. The issues of bullying and school violence today have confronted

us with the question of the raison d’etre of teachers and schools. (Umeno, 1998,

p. 31)

Naito (2001) argues that schools in Japan are like ‘communes’, where students are

expected to be submissive to the prescribed behavioural pattern even down to their

psyche. This almost inevitably induces resistance. Teachers, on the other hand, are

bound to maintain order and are assessed on that basis: they are blamed for failing to

put students under control. Within this framework, Naito points out, teachers are driven

to oppress students even by using violence and threat, and schools function as if it were

beyond the confines of civil society.

Naito (2001) further argues that teachers who resort to violence to ‘guide’ students,

and students who are engaged in bullying just for ‘fun’, both operate on the same

principle of dominating others by using power. He holds that ‘nori’, the unpredictable,

collective mood of the group at a particular point in time, provides the foundation for

bullying. It usually finds its target in someone in the group who is seen to be easily

manipulated. Naito explains that students are thus exposed to three kinds of power

structures in school: (1) official school rules and regulations; (2) unofficial use of violence

by teachers, which is employed to ‘keep order’; and (3) the collective ‘nori’ violence by

students, which is used to ‘have fun’.

According to Naito et al., (2002), although teachers hold legitimate power to control

students, there is often a seesaw-like relationship between teachers who resort to violence

to control students and students who also try to hold power in school by using violence.

In some schools, the power relationship in school can flip over between power-dominant

teachers and power-dominant students, depending on the actual profile of teachers and

students. It is therefore possible that teachers are bullied by students (Sugeno, 1997). In

other schools, violent teachers may act in connivance with violent students (Naito, 2001).

The problem is that whichever party is in control in real terms, human relations in

school operate on the principle of naked power.

Conformity and ‘Group Management’

One of the primary aims of Japanese schools has been to create ‘desirable Japanese’ (for

example, Yoneyama, 2002). To this end, schools in Japan have put a great emphasis on

the behavioural management of students. More specifically, to heighten conformity

through effective group management has functioned as the fundamental principle of

school education. Thus, the importance of being ‘the same as others in the cohesive

group’ has been the central theme of socialisation in Japanese schools. The content of

324 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

the sameness has been prescribed by school rules and regulations. Formally established

groups, small units (han) and ‘homeroom’, have provided frameworks to the school life

of students. Since 1993, as teachers’ assessment of students’ attitude was integrated as the

central part of student assessment, the pressure to conform to the prescribed behavioural

norm has become even more relentless (Yoneyama, 1999).

It has been pointed out that the greater the teachers’ pressure for students to be the

same and for a class to act cohesively as a group, the greater the chance that

bullying will occur in the class (Hata, 1996; Taki, 1996; Sugeno, 1997; Yoneyama,

1999). Takekawa (1993) found that that peer bullying tended to happen in a class

where students were dissatisfied with the authoritarian way that teachers set norms

and supervised students: providing little room for students to express their views,

negotiate with teachers, or manage by themselves. He also found that there is a clear

correlation between peer bullying and the adoption of the educational method

called ‘rentai sekinin’ where the whole group is held responsible by the teacher for

something done by one or more members of the group. Elsewhere it is reported that

students who have been punished in this manner tended to be engaged in bullying more

frequently than those who have not (Hata, 2000). Takekawa (1993) concludes that

students, when feeling oppressed and dissatisfied, tend to lose positive commitment to the

group, and that this creates an aggressive atmosphere in the class that often leads to peer

bullying.

The typology of the bully and the victim by Morita & Kiyonaga (1994) adds an extra

dimension to the explanation given by Takekawa. They found that all students involved

in bullying in one way or another can be classified using two parameters. First is their

attitude towards the school’s ‘core values’ such as rules and regulations, supervision and

guidance by teachers, authority of teachers, and group activities. The second is the

degree of independence or submissiveness of the student vis-a-vis the powerful, whether

teachers or students. According to their analysis, bullies not only resist authority, but also

feel negative towards the ‘core values’ of the school (i.e. they prefer decision-making by

students, they feel negative about being obedient to teachers, and they do not like being

controlled by rules and regulations). Victims, on the other hand, tend to be the complete

opposite: they are inclined to be submissive and feel relatively positive about the ‘core

values’ of the school.

This typology seems applicable to a wide range of situations. The bully could be an

overtly ‘rebellious’ type, who uses counter-school values to attack victims who are more

compliant with authority. This can happen in any school. In a highly regimented school,

however, where the level of conformity among students has been maximised through the

imposition of detailed petty rules, the difference between the bully and the victim can be

infinitely small, and the counter-school values may be well hidden from teachers. In such

an environment, anything could be used as the reason for bullying. To be seen as being

obedient to teachers could inspire someone to bully the obedient student. At the same

time, the slightest diversion from the group norms could also be seen as a weakness to

be targeted for bullying. In this sense, the pressure to conform comes not only from

teachers, but also from students. The leading bully can very well be a ‘model’ student

who has learnt to hide his/her dissatisfaction with authority. Yoneyama regards ijime as

the expression of over-conformity on the part of students. She states that it serves as an

illegitimate, ‘school-floor’, peer-surveillance system, which helps heighten the group

conformity and perfect the enforcement of school rules, while at the same time students

try to stamp out all signs of individuality from each other (Yoneyama, 1999).

Understanding Bullying 325

Classroom as Confinement

Some have argued that the closed nature Japanese classroom itself plays a pivotal role

in promoting bullying. In Japan, even in secondary schools, most subjects are taught in

the same classroom called ‘homeroom’, where students of the same age belonging to a

particular class spend most of the time together throughout the school year. Sugeno

(1997) argues that bullying is an ‘inevitable by-product’ of the school, which aims to

pursue ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ as a social institution. He maintains that the

classroom is designed to close students off both socially and physically from the outside

world, in order to maximise the control of students by teachers.

Naito adds to this by describing Japanese classroom as the place where each individual

student is ‘enclosed’ as a whole person and forced to relate with others totally and

completely through all sorts of activities in small groups. These activities (e.g. learning,

eating, cleaning, and participating in school events) train them in group behaviour and

group responsibility. He explains that, in this structure, students are constantly forced to

be involved in human relationships that are not of their own choosing, without being

able to maintain a comfortable distance from others. The school thus constitutes a

‘commune-like’ social environment where students constantly check, regulate, manipu-

late and intervene with the ‘mind/heart’ (kokoro) of each other, without allowing anyone

to be private and be himself/herself (Naito, 2001). In the commune-like environment,

Naito continues, students seek the illusory sense of ‘omnipotence’ (zennokan) through

bullying, in order to salvage their sense of cohesion of self. The more ‘commune-like’ the

school is, the more bullying is likely to happen (Naito, 2001). Similarly, Miyadai (1997)

describes the Japanese class as a ‘jam-packed train’. He states that Japanese classes are

in a ‘touch-and-go situation’ due to the stress and frustration of students who are forced

to be with ‘complete strangers’ for a ‘long time’ in a ‘limited space’ only to listen to the

one-way lecture of ‘dull teachers’ (Miyadai, 1997).

To put it differently, the Japanese classroom is a prison-like space where students are

bound to the many factors contributing to bullying. No matter how stressful the study,

how authoritarian the teacher–student relationship, how violent the teachers or fellow

students, or how strong the pressure to conform, if students have a reasonable amount

of liberty to move around within the school and break away from situations that could

lead to bullying, the schools would not be felt to be so stifling.

In summary, the review of literature on bullying in Japanese schools suggests the

following hypotheses.

1. A high level of stress among students exists as the background of bullying. Study-re-

lated factors—that is, the alienating nature of learning (boredom and the meaningless-

ness of study) and the pressure to achieve academically—are particularly relevant in

explaining stress among students.

2. Students ‘learn’ power-dominant human relationships from the teacher–student

relationship, where teachers hold legitimate power to control students, which is often

used to put them down. Teachers’ legitimate power is often in conflict with the

illegitimate power held by some students. The more overt the conflict, the more

violent the school climate becomes. Regardless of who it is that holds real power,

power-dominant human relationships persist in school. In this environment, students

learn to be generally submissive to those who hold power, but be oppressive to those

who are socially weaker than themselves.

3. Through the behaviour/classroom management applied at school, which emphasises

conformity and group cohesion, students ‘learn’ to be less tolerant of individual

326 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

differences, to diminish individuality as much as possible, and to be close to one

another to the extent that they manipulate the mind/heart of each other.

4. Through the organisation of space and time in school, the classroom in Japan has

become a ‘pressure-cooker’, where all the three factors already mentioned fuse to

create ‘bullying energy’. In this cage-like environment, students are forced to relate to

one another intensely without being able to keep a comfortable distance from each

other.

The literature suggests, in other words, that almost all key aspects of school (i.e. learning,

teacher–student relationship, behaviour/classroom management practice, and the spacial

and time organisation of school) are intricately connected to each other in such a way

as to promote bullying behaviour. These key factors are closely reflected in the

characteristics of bullying in Japanese schools discussed earlier, namely: (1) that bullying

occurs primarily in classrooms; (2) that group dynamics play a central role in determining

the nature (length, severity, and the number of students involved) of bullying; and (3) that

bullying is a ‘normal’ behaviour of ‘non-problem’ students (as well as ‘problem students’),

suggesting a structural problem therein. As far as Japanese schools are concerned, it is

very likely that school factors play a pivotal role in explaining bullying behaviour among

students.

Recommendations

This paper does not claim that observations made in Japan are readily applicable to an

understanding of bullying elsewhere. Like other student-related issues, such as suicide

and non-attendance at school, similarities in ‘problematic behaviour’ among students

across different societies do not necessarily mean that the causes are the same (Chiland

& Young, 1990). What we have attempted to do in this paper, using the Japanese case,

is to illustrate that these factors can be the key to understand peer bullying. The degree

of relevance of each factor depends on the society. The authors believe, however, that

irrespective of the society under review, the Japanese case epitomises some fundamental

aspects of conventional schools as they exist today. The question is not whether the

Japanese case is relevant, but to what extent it is relevant, for the understanding of

bullying in other societies.

Generally speaking, when compared with the broadly ‘Western’ liberal-democratic

education system, schools in Japan conform to the authoritarian and teacher-centred

paradigm of education. The Japanese system resembles the ‘traditional’ mode of

education that has been referred to as ‘banking education’ (Freire, 1972) or ‘the jug and

mug approach to education’ (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). This mode of education aims to

train students to be submissive through study: to receive knowledge given by teachers

uncritically; not to ask questions; not to contradict teachers; and, ultimately, not to think

critically, but to listen and swallow what they are told (Yoneyama, 1999). A comparative

study on students’ perceptions of secondary school in Japan and Australia found that

teacher–student relationships are perceived by students to be more authoritarian, school

regulations and discipline measures are more regimented and pervasive, and the content

of study is more prescriptive and less student-centred in Japan than in Australia

(Yoneyama, 1999). The most salient indicator of the teacher–student relationship, as well

as the social awareness of human rights of children as a closely related issue, is the

prevalence of corporal punishment and other forms of physical power exercised by

teachers upon students. While corporal punishment is now abolished in many parts of

Understanding Bullying 327

the world, this can be used as the main parameter to assess the quality of the

teacher–student relationship and its correlation with bullying among students.

Schools often generate pressure to conform to the prescribed behavioural norms

through rules and regulations. The studies on bullying in Japan suggest that pressure to

conform and group management are areas that need to be carefully assessed in relation

to counter-bullying measures. If the class or school is full of aggressive energy that leads

to bullying, there is a limit as to how much one can involve students in counter measures.

In such a school climate, it is possible that techniques such as peer counselling could

make the class/school an even more closed space for students (Naito, 2001; Naito et al.,

2002). In such an environment, the solution to peer bullying will have to involve

changing the school climate itself.

On the other hand, if the social climate of a particular school is seen to have a

buffering effect on peer bullying, and the bullying is caused by other factors, methods

such as anti-bullying education and peer counselling may be effective. Peer counselling

will be particularly effective when only one bully is involved. In the case of collective

bullying, however, peer counselling runs the risk of worsening the situation. It seems

vitally important that the first step is to assess the school climate. Is it sufficiently

democratic and fair for students to handle bullying problems? Is it necessary to review

student–teacher relations as well as peer relations in order to redress the problem?

The more closely associated school factors of peer victimisation are with the educa-

tional paradigm of a particular society, the more inevitable it will be that the counter-

bullying measures will involve fundamental changes of the school itself. If the problem

is structural, so must be the solution. The review of the literature on peer victimisation

in Japan suggests the following as strategies to prevent and reduce student-to-student

bullying at schools.

1. The identification of the cause of school-related stress among students, or more

precisely ‘distress’ (bad stress) as against ‘eustress’ (good stress that can be perceived

as challenge). Structural sources of stress should be eliminated as much as possible.

2. The introduction of a learner-centred approach to education as much as possible, in

terms of pedagogy, curriculum (e.g. module-based curriculum) and assessment.

3. The improvement of teacher–student relationships. Most importantly, teachers should

try to listen to students as much as they can as the basis for mutual trust and respect.

4. Learning by both teachers and student about harassment and discrimination; not only

their moral implications, but also about legal and administrative procedures con-

cerned.

5. The design of the physical environment of school so that it is a comfortable and

pleasant place to be both for teachers and students; in particular, the abolition of the

‘homeroom system’ that confines the same group of students to a particular class-

room.

Conclusion

The examination of peer bullying in Japanese schools suggests that it is necessary to focus

more specifically on school factors as potential causes of peer bullying. The similarity in

the phenomena of bullying across different societies does not necessarily mean that the

explanation applicable in one society is readily applicable to another. The reason why

one student bullies another may be attributed entirely to his/her personality or circum-

stances that have little to do with the broader social context. However, it would be safe

328 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

to assume that conventional (as against alternative) schools in different societies share, to

varying degrees, some fundamental principles as social institutions. In this paper, the

Japanese school is seen as a case where the institutional features of schools are present

in a most concentrated form—including hierarchical and authoritarian human relation-

ships, alienating modes of learning, high levels of regimentation, and dehumanising

methods of discipline. It is also seen as a social institution whereby individuals are

compelled to relate to each other in a group without being able to keep comfortable

distance from each other. Although the situation in Japanese schools may appear

extreme, it allows us to think about student bullying with a clearer focus on the school

environment as a primary causal factor.

If student bullying, at least in part, reflects a structural problem, then instead of

focusing on ‘problem students’ and ‘problem behaviour’, it becomes necessary to

examine the social structure of school itself. Instead of trying to change the individual

students concerned, it becomes necessary to change the school, or more fundamentally,

the educational paradigm that formulates student–teacher relationships, the nature of

learning, and the manner of keeping necessary order. Changing schools will not

eliminate all the bullying among students (which may derive from factors other than

school), but it has the potential to turn schools into places where pupils and students

learn an alternative mode of human relations where individuals relate with each other

freely without being dominated by power. Schools can be places where students learn to

‘de-code’ all the other factors that promote bullying outside the school context, instead

of being places where power-dominant human relations are ‘re-learned’ and reproduced.

Correspondence: Dr Shoko Yoneyama, Centre for Asian Studies, Adelaide University, South

Australia 5005, Australia. E-mail: shoko.yoneyama@adelaide.edu.au

NOTES

[1] In this article, the word ‘student’ will be used to mean ‘school student’ even though ‘pupil’ might be a

more commonly used word in some countries like the UK.

[2] Since both Norwegian and Australian data refer only to frequent bullying, this figure (i.e. 8%) would

probably be the closest comparative data currently available. Although the study by Morita et al. (1999b)

satisfies two categories of the definition of bullying by Olweus (i.e. ‘aggressive behavior or intentional

“harm doing” ’ and ‘an imbalance of power’), it is based on less stringent definition with respect to

frequency. That is, while the definition by Olweus demands the incident to occur ‘repeatedly and over

time’, the study by Morita et al. include cases that happened ‘once or twice’ during the last term.

[3] Socks with a tidy decoration, which are different from the prescribed, plain socks.

REFERENCES

ASKEW, S. (1988) Aggressive behaviour in boys: to what extent is it institutionalised?, in: D. TATTUM & D. LANE

(Eds) Bullying in Schools (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).

AZUMA, H., NADA, I., OGI, N. & YAZAKI, A. (1986) Coming to grips with bullying, Japan Echo, 13, pp. 56–62.

BEYNON, J. (1985) Initial Encounters in the Secondary School (London, Falmer Press).

BJORKQVIST, K. & OSTERMAN, K. (1999) Finland, in: P.K. SMITH, Y. MORITA, J. JUNGER-TAS, D. OLWEUS, R.

CATALANO & P. SLEE (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying (London and New York, Routledge).

BOWERS, L., SMITH, P.K. & BINNEY, V. (1994) Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims and bully/vic-

tims in middle childhood, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, pp. 215–232.

BOWLES, S. & GINTIS, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Understanding Bullying 329

CHILAND, C. & YOUNG, J.G. (1990) Introduction, in: C. CHILAND & J.G. YOUNG (Eds) Why Children Reject School:

views from seven countries (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).

DAVIES, G. (1993) Pensby High School for Boys, Wirral, in: D. TATTUM & G. HERBERT (Eds) Countering Bullying:

initiatives by schools and local authorities (Stoke-on-Trent, Tretham Books).

ELKINS, C. (1993) Glapton Primary School, Nottingham, in: D. TATTUM & G. HERBERT (Eds) Countering Bullying:

initiatives by schools and local authorities (Stoke-on-Trent, Tretham Books).

FARRINGTON, D.P. (1993) Understanding and preventing bullying, Crime and Justice: a review of research, 17, pp.

381–458.

FREIRE, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, Penguin Books).

GIROUX, H. (1983) Theory and Resistance in Education: a pedagogy for the opposition (London, Heinemann Educational

Books).

GOFFMAN, E. (1968) Asylums (Harmondswroth, Penguin).

HATA, M. (1996) Gakko-kan no doko o kaenakereba naranaika [Which part of the perceptions of school needs

to be changed], in: S. SAKAMOTO (Ed.) Ijime to kyoshi no ishiki kaikaku no kadai [Ijime and the Problem of Raising

Awareness among Teachers] (Tokyo, Meiji tosho).

HATA, M. (2000) Ijime taio to sono koka [The counter measure to bullying and its effect], in: Y. MORITA (Ed.) Ijime

boshi-ho no kaihatsu to sono manuaru-ka ni kansuru kenkyu [A Study for the Development of a Manual on Preventative

Measures Against Bullying], 1998–9 Kagaku kenkyu-hi hojoshin kenkyu seika hokokusho [Grant-in-Aid for

Scientific Research, Research Report] #10551012 (Tokyo, Kyoiku kaihatsu joho senta).

INAMURA, H. (1986) Ijime mondai: Nihon dokutoku no haikei to sono taisaku. [The Problem of Bullying: backgrounds

characteristic of Japan and counter measures] (Tokyo, Kyoiku shuppan).

INOUE, T. (1996) Ijime kaunseringu [Bullying Counselling] (Tokyo, Meiji tosho).

JUNGER-TAS, J. (1999) The Netherlands, in: P.K. SMITH, Y. MORITA, J. JUNGER-TAS, D. OLWEUS, R. CATALANO

& P. SLEE (Eds) The Nature of School Bullying (London and New York, Routledge).

KOBAYASHI, T. (1995) Mazu kyoshi ga taibatsu o yameyo [First, teachers should stop using corporal

punishment], Shukan kinyobi, 10 February, p. 20.

KOBAYASHI, T. (1996) Gakko-kan no doko o kaenakereba naranaika [What perception of school has to be

changed?], in: S. SAKAMOTO (Ed.) Ijime to kyoshi no ishiki henkaku no kadai [Bullying and the Issue of Changing

Awareness by Teachers] (Tokyo, Meiji tosho).

MCGUINESS, J. & CRAGGS, D. (1986) Disruption as school-generated problem, in D. TATTUM (Ed.) Management

of Disruptive Pupil Behaviour in Schools (Chichester, John Wiley & Sons).

MILLS, C.R. (1970) The Sociological Imagination (Harmondsworth, Penguin).

MIYADAI, S. (1997) Chumoku sugeki ha chugakusei no sutoresu [What needs to be paid attention to is the stress

among junior high school students] (special issue), Jidoshinri [Juvenile Psychology], 687, pp. 24–31.

MIYADAI, S. & FUJII, S. (1998) Gakko teki nichijo o ikinuke [Survive through the School-Like Everyday-Life] (Tokyo, Koiku

shuppan shiryokai).

MORITA, Y. & KIYONAGA, K. (1986, 1994 second edition) Ijime: Kyoshitsu no yamai [Bullying: pathology in classrooms]

(Tokyo, Kaneko-shobo).

MORITA, Y., SOEDA, H., SOEDA, K. & TAKI, M. (1999a) Japan, in: P.K. SMITH, Y. MORITA, J. JUNGER-TAS, D.

OLWEUS, R. CATALANO & P. SLEE (Eds) The Nature of School Bullying (London and New York, Routledge).

MORITA, Y., TAKI, M., HATA, M., et al. (1999b) Nihon no ijime: yobo, taio ni ikasu deta shu [Bullying in Japan: empirical

data for prevention and counter measures] (Tokyo, Kaneko shobo].

NAITO, A. (2001) Ijime no shakai riron [Social Theory of Bullying] (Tokyo, Kashiwa-shobo).

NAITO, A., MIYADAI, S. & FUJII, S. (2002) Gakko ga jiyu ni naru hi [The Day Schools are Liberated] (Tokyo,

Kirara-shobo) (forthcoming).

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY RESEARCH OF JAPAN (2001) Sutoresu chekku risuto o katsuyo shita

seito shido no kokoromi [An Attempt for Student Guidance Through the Usage of the ‘Stress Check List’] (Tokyo, NIEPJ).

NIHON BENGOSHI RENGOKAI [Japan Federation of Bar Associations] (1995) Ijime mondai hando bukku [A Handbook

on Bullying] (Tokyo, Kochi-shobo).

OLWEUS, D. (1973) Hackkycklingar och oversittare. Forskning om skolmobbning (Stockholm, Almqvist & Wicksell).

OLWEUS, D. (1980) Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: a

causal analysis, Developmental Psychology, 16, pp. 644–666.

OLWEUS, D. (1993) Bullying in School (Oxford, Blackwell).

OLWEUS, D. (1999) Norway, in: P.K. SMITH, Y. MORITA, J. JUNGER-TAS, D. OLWEUS, R. CATALANO & P. SLEE

(Eds) The Nature of School Bullying (London and New York, Routledge).

RANDALL, P. (1996) Aggression at school, post-traumatic stress disorder and peer relations, in: P.T. SLEE & K.

RIGBY (Eds) Children’s Peer Relations: current issues and future directions (London, Routledge).

RIGBY, K. (1993) School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations,

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, pp. 501–514.

330 S. Yoneyama & A. Naito

RIGBY, K. (1994) Psycho-social functioning in families of Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in

bully/victim problems, Journal of Family Therapy, 16, pp. 173–189.

RIGBY, K. (1996) Bullying in Schools (Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research).

RIGBY, K. (1997) Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children, The Irish Journal of

Psychology, 18, pp. 202–220.

RIGBY, K. (2001) Stop the Bullying: a handbook for schools (Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational

Research).

RIGBY, K. & SLEE, P. (1995) Manual for the Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ) (Adelaide, University of South

Australia).

RIVERS, I. & SOUTTER, A. (1996) Bullying and the Steiner school ethos, School Psychology International, 17, pp.

359–377.

ROLAND, E. (1988) Bullying: the Scandinavian research tradition, in: D. TATTUM & D. LANE (Eds) Bullying in

Schools (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).

RUTTER, M., MAUGHAM, B., MORTIMORE, P. & OUSTEN, J. (1986) The study of school effectiveness, in: J.C.

VAN DER WOLF & J.J. HOX (Eds) Kwaliteit van het Onderwijs in het geding (Lisse, Swets and Zeitlinger).

SAITO, S. (1996) Gakkyu no naka no ijime to ijimerare [Bullying and being bullied in a classroom], in: T.

HORIO, M. OTA, S. YOKOYU, et al. (Eds) Kodomo no iyashi to gakko [School and the Healing of Children] (Tokyo,

Kashiwa-shobo).

SAKAMOTO, H. (1986) Taibatsu no kenkyu [Studies in Corporal Punishment] (Tokyo, San’ichi shobo).

SMITH, P.K. & SHARP, S. (Eds) (1994) School Bullying: insights and perspectives (London, Routledge).

SMITH, P.K., MORITA, Y., JUNGER-TAS, J., OLWEUS, D., CATALANO, R. & SLEE, P. (Eds) (1999) The Nature of

School Bullying (London and New York, Routledge).

STEPHENSON, P. & SMITH, D. (1989) Why some schools don’t have bullies, in: M. ELLIOTT (Ed.) Bullying: a

practical guide to coping for schools (Harlow, Longman).

SUGENO (1997) Ijime: Gakkyu no ningen-gaku [Ijime: study into the human relationship in the classroom] (Tokyo,

Shinyo-sha).

TAKANO, K. (1986) Ijime no mekanizumu [The Mechanism of ijime] (Tokyo, Kyoiku shuppan).

TAKEKAWA, I. (1993) Ijime to futoko no shakaigaku [Sociology of Bullying and School Non-Attendance] (Kyoto, Horitsu

bunka-sha).

TAKI, M. (1996) Ijime o sodateru gakkyu tokusei [School Characteristics which Cultivate ijime] (Tokyo, Meiji tosho).

TATTUM, D. (1988) Violence and agression in schools, in: D. TATTUM & D. LANE (Eds) Bullying in Schools

(Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).

TATTUM, D. (1993) Preface, in: D. TATTUM & G. HERBERT (Eds) Countering Bullying: initiatives by schools and local

authorities (Stoke-on-Trent, Tretham Books).

TATTUM, D. & HERBERT, G. (Eds) (1993) Countering Bullying: initiatives by schools and local authorities (Stoke-on-

Trent, Tretham Books).

TATTUM, D. & LANE, D. (Eds) (1988) Bullying in Schools (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).

TERUMOTO, H. (1996) ‘Suihei boryoku’ no moto de no ‘pawagemu’ no taisho-ka o [Objectifying the ‘power

game’ under the ‘horizontal violence’], Seikatsu shido, 483.

TERUMOTO, H. (1997) Ijime no kontekisuto [The context of bullying], Ryukyu daigaku kyoiku gakubu kiyo, 50.

TESHIGAHARA, K. (1986) Ijime to taibatsu ni miru gakko seikatsu no sutoresu [School stress as manifested in

ijime and corporal punishment], Gendai no esupuri, 227, pp. 50–65.

TOYODA, M. (1995) Kyoshi wa muryoku na mama ka [Do teachers remain powerless?], Asahi shinbun, 11

January.

UMENO, M. (1998) Ijime jisatsu, gakko-nai boryoku kara kyoshi jishin o toi naosu [Raise questions about

teachers themselves in relation to ijime-suicide and school violence], in: M. UMENO (Ed.) Kyoshi wa nanikara

hajimeru bekika [What Should Teachers Begin With?] (Tokyo, Kyoiku shiryo shuppankai).

VAN ACKER, R. & TALBOTT, E. (1999) The school context and risk for aggression: implications for school-based

prevention and intervention efforts, Preventing School Failure, 44.

WOLKE, D., WOODS, S., STANFORD, K. & SCHULZ, H. (2001) Bullying and victimization of primary school

children in England and Germany: prevalence and school factors, British Journal of Psychology, 92, pp.

673–701.

YONEYAMA, S. (1999) The Japanese High School: silence and resistance (London, Routledge).

YONEYAMA, S. (2002) Japanese ‘educational reform’: the plan for the twenty-first century, in: J. MASWOOD, J.

GRAHAM & H. MIYAJIMA (Eds), Japan—Change and Continuity (London, Curzon Press).