Key Words

Bullying remains a salient issue facing university students, necessitating continued research from diverse methodological lenses. This autoethnographic study explores bullying and climate issues from an insider student perspective. The researcher leverages their personal experiences with bullying victimisation and witnessing as current university students. Through reflective writing, they provide detailed first-person accounts of specific bullying events and perceptions of the broader campus climate. Qualitative analysis of these emotive narratives reveals key themes around the persistence of bullying behaviours, complex bystander dynamics, unsupportive institutional responses, and protective factors like inclusive climate and student empowerment that could be expanded upon. While limited in generalizability, the findings demonstrate autoethnography's potential for generating nuanced, experiential insights on bullying complementing traditional prevalence data. Practical implications highlight opportunities for anti-bullying education, policy improvements, youth-adult partnership, and further research centred on student voices.

Key Words

Bullying, Autoethnography, School Climate, Student Experience, Phenomenology, Bystander Intervention, Youth Participatory Research

Introduction

Bullying is a critical issue hurting people in all occupations, but it is most prevalent in the education and workplace sectors. Bullying is a problem not just because it occurs but also because of the harmful consequences of bullying, bullying others, and being a spectator to bullying (Butt, Muhammad, & Masood, 2021). Anxiety, sadness, suicidal thoughts, social isolation, and poor health are some repercussions (Campbell, 2016).

Bullying is a major issue that can manifest itself in various ways. Bullying was originally investigated using a technique that is still in use today. According to this definition, bullying occurs when someone exploits their position, repeatedly does the same thing, and intends to harm someone (Olweus, 1994). As society evolved, so did the methods by which individuals bullied one another, giving rise to new forms such as cyberbullying.

Bullying and cyberbullying are well-known issues in education and the workplace, and there has been much discussion about how to address them (Rajpoot, Muhammad, & Anis, 2021). Olweus researched bullying in schools. Consequently, he developed a definition of bullying and techniques for protecting and assisting bullied persons (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). Bullying in universities has received less attention due to a lack of research, and hardly any debate or proposals for how to avoid it have been made (Aslam, Muhammad, & Nasir, 2022). Due to inadequate reporting and the fact that most universities do not have a regular structure for documenting bullying incidents, researchers cannot rely on university reports for data gathering. Underreporting can occur for various reasons, including a person’s belief that reporting bullying would have no positive effects, a lack of acquaintance with bullying terminology and concepts, appropriate laws, and who to report bullying to (Campbell, 2016). More reasons exist.

Autoethnography involves conducting an in-depth analysis of personal experiences to gain insider insight into sociocultural dynamics (Ellis et al., 2011). This qualitative method aligns with calls for youth participatory research centring young people’s voices in matters directly affecting them. Firsthand emotive student accounts can illuminate complex dynamics around bullying and climate issues in compelling ways. However, self-reflexivity is crucial for interrogating biases in representing personal experiences (Adams et al., 2015).

The atmosphere of universities and a university's values, relationships, interactions, and structures all contribute to the "climate," which reflects the quality and personality of the university's environment. In addition, how administrators, teachers, students, and other school personnel interact is frequently used to gauge values and relationships.

Although the terms “university culture” and “university climate” are frequently used interchangeably, Maslowski (2001) described university culture as a reflection of society and its many values and ideas. This investigation will focus on the institution’s overall atmosphere, which was classified as authoritative (positive) or non-authoritative (negative) for reference purposes. For this study, the atmosphere of the university will be conceptualised as a group of the scores obtained on scales assessing the institution’s disciplinary structure and the level of student assistance.

This autoethnography aims to evocatively share my lived experiences with bullying as a university student. I [the first author] reflect on specific bullying events I have witnessed and endured, including my perceptions of the broader campus climate. Through rich first-person narration, I share nuanced perspectives on the interpersonal, institutional, and sociocultural factors that shape bullying issues from a young person’s standpoint. Findings could inform practitioner efforts to address bullying issues through a lens of empathy and understanding. The study seeks to demonstrate autoethnography’s potential value for participatory investigations of education issues directly impacting students.

Method

This study used an autoethnographic qualitative design. Autoethnography involves conducting an in-depth analysis of personal lived experiences to gain insight into sociocultural phenomena (Adams et al., 2015). This approach was selected to provide an emic perspective on bullying and climate issues from my standpoint as a university student. Autoethnography allowed me to leverage my insider knowledge while rigorously examining my subjective experiences as both a witness to and a target of bullying (Muhammad & Brett, 2015).




Participant

As the sole participant, I brought an intersectional lens as a 26-year-old, heterosexual, cisgender female of Punjabi ethnic background pursuing a postgraduate degree in education. My positionality influences my interpretations of experiences in both enlightening and limiting ways. I have witnessed and endured bullying across various educational contexts since elementary school. These lifelong encounters with bullying fuelled my interest in sharing my perspectives for this study.




Data Collection

Data collection involved reflective writing focused on my personal memories, observations, thoughts, and feelings related to bullying experiences at my current university. I aimed to provide evocative descriptions of specific bullying events I have witnessed or directly experienced on campus property or associated with campus life. I also detailed my perceptions of and affective responses to the broader campus climate. Writing prompts included:

? Describe a time you observed bullying on campus. What happened? Who was involved? How did you feel/respond?

? Recollect a time you were personally bullied in a university context. What forms did the bullying take? What impacts did this have on you?

? How connected and cared for do you feel at the university? What contributes to those feelings?

? In your opinion, how well does the university address bullying issues? Provide examples that inform your perspective.

I wrote approximately multiple pages of reflective data over the course of several weeks. Revisiting memories and associated emotions often proved challenging. I practiced self-care throughout the process given the sensitive nature of the topics explored.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using qualitative procedures informed by the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2014). Initial line-by-line coding was used to assign conceptual labels to small units of data. Focused coding then identified recurring patterns and categories across the developing codes. Finally, theoretical coding elucidated relationships between categories to synthesise larger themes.

Data gathering and analysis started straight away. To ensure the validity and reliability of the data analysis procedure, which started with a systematic approach, categories and sub-categories were defined. As soon as the process started, all ideas were considered tentative.

I engaged in memo writing throughout the analysis to record my reflexive observations and interpretations. Imaginative variation was employed to examine the data from multiple angles and challenge my assumptions. Member reflections offered by fellow students who reviewed the findings also augmented perspective-taking. These strategies aligned with autoethnography's emphasis on exploring subjective meanings while avoiding solipsism (Adams et al., 2015).

Findings

Data were analysed using qualitative procedures informed by the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2014). Initial line-by-line coding was used to assign conceptual labels to small units of data. Focused coding then identified recurring patterns and categories across the developing codes. Finally, theoretical coding elucidated relationships between categories to synthesise larger themes.

Data gathering and analysis started straight away. To ensure the validity and reliability of the data analysis procedure, which started with a systematic approach, categories and sub-categories were defined. As soon as the process started, all ideas were considered tentative.

I engaged in memo writing throughout the analysis to record my reflexive observations and interpretations. Imaginative variation was employed to examine the data from multiple angles and challenge my assumptions. Member reflections offered by fellow students who reviewed the findings also augmented perspective-taking. These strategies aligned with autoethnography's emphasis on exploring subjective meanings while avoiding solipsism (Adams et al., 2015).

Discussion

This autoethnographic study offers an in-depth examination of my personal experiences with bullying and the university climate from an insider’s perspective. Several compelling insights emerge from the findings that warrant further discussion.




The Prevalence of Bullying

The frequent and varied examples of bullying described in the findings reveal that bullying remains an ongoing problem affecting the university campus. As the interview excerpts demonstrate, bullying occurs across multiple contexts from classrooms to common areas to online platforms. Verbal, social, and physical bullying are all present. These findings align with broader research showing bullying is still common in university settings (Chapell et al., 2006; Muhammad, Akhter, & Lala, 2019).

While statistics help quantify the scope of bullying, the examples provided in the findings add an important qualitative dimension. They provide a nuanced glimpse into the interpersonal dynamics, power imbalances, and social spectatorship involved in bullying. This underscores the value of qualitative, lived experience data for more fully understanding the complex bullying phenomenon. My personal encounters narrated in the findings reveal how bullying jeopardises victims’ sense of safety, belonging, and empowerment at the university. This aligns with studies linking bullying victimisation to adverse mental health effects like anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Srabstein et al., 2008). By contextualising statistics within actual lived experiences, the narrative data makes the human impacts viscerally real.

The findings point to several factors that may enable bullying behaviours. Insufficient anti-bullying education, lenient consequences, power differentials, and social tolerance of bullying likely all contribute (Siddiqui, Muhammad, & Naseer, 2021). This highlights the importance of multifaceted prevention and response efforts targeting individual, peer, and institutional levels (Lee, 2006). While widespread bullying may feel intractable, evidence-based best practices offer hope for meaningful improvements.   




The Role of Bystanders

A particularly notable finding was the recurring tendency for students to be passive bystanders during bullying events. Fear of becoming targeted, uncertainty about how to help, and diffusion of responsibility all influenced students’ inaction. This theme demonstrates the complex interpersonal and psychosocial dynamics that perpetuate bullying through passive spectatorship.

The findings support the relevance of Latane ? and Darley’s (1970) seminal bystander intervention model for understanding and promoting prosocial responses to bullying. Their model outlines five steps needed for intervention: noticing the event, interpreting it as requiring help, feeling responsible for acting, possessing skills to help, and implementing intervention decisions (Latane ? & Darley). Increasing education around safe and effective intervention skills could enable more students to progress through these steps. Active bystanders may be vital to shifting social norms and reducing bullying behaviours (Pozzoli & Gini, 2013).

Empowering student bystanders reflects a social-ecological approach that leverages peers’ direct presence during bullying events. However, institutional strategies remain necessary for enacting lasting change. As Espelage (2014) argues, “Although peers are present during bullying and possess the power to intervene, we cannot expect youth to carry the sole responsibility for change; the adults in their environment must also be leveraged to prevent bullying” (p. 152). This study’s findings reinforce that a multifaceted sociocultural approach is essential.




Administrative Response 

The study exposed frustrations with the university’s response to reported bullying incidents. Delays in investigations, limited communication, inconsistent consequences, and lack of victim support all contributed to perceptions that reports were not taken seriously. These findings indicate significant room for improvement in the university’s policies, procedures, and practices around bullying response. 

Research shows that fair discipline processes, prompt support services, and open communication with reporters all help establish norms against bullying behaviours (Cornell & Limber, 2015). When institutions fail to respond adequately, they can implicitly condone bullying, discourage future reporting, and further endanger targeted students. The university has an ethical and legal obligation to provide a safe learning environment for all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Strengthening response protocols is urgently needed.

From a critical perspective, the findings also raise questions about potential biases influencing whose concerns get prioritised. Delays or dismissiveness toward marginalised student reports could reflect institutionalised prejudice. Continued advocacy and activism are needed to challenge systemic inequities and ensure all students’ experiences are heard, validated, and addressed.  




Fostering a Positive Climate

While highlighting areas for growth, the findings also identified existing strengths at the university that could be expanded upon. An inclusive culture, diversity, supportive faculty, and student empowerment initiatives all contribute to a healthier climate. This aligns with research linking a positive school climate to lower bullying rates (Wang et al., 2019). Fostering connectedness, modelling respectful behaviours, and facilitating open dialogues about differences are beneficial strategies validated by studies (Ortega et al., 2012).

The findings suggest student empowerment remains partial; enhancing student voice in decision-making could further improve the climate. Involving students in developing anti-bullying policies and prevention initiatives fostered shared responsibility and help ensure programs reflect youth needs. Students have unique insights as key stakeholders; their partnership is integral for creating contexts where everyone feels safe, accepted, and valued.  

Implications for Researchers

This study also yields helpful methodological insights for researchers. The depth of data generated through an autoethnographic approach demonstrates the value of insider, emic perspectives for illuminating complex psychosocial issues like bullying. The evocative descriptions provide a level of detail and nuance that outsider studies cannot access in the same way. This supports the growing recognition of non-traditional approaches like autoethnography as legitimate means for scientific inquiry (Ellis et al., 2011).

However, as a subjective account, this autoethnography inherently presents my particular interpretation. Other students may recount different experiences that broaden their understanding of the university climate. Incorporating multiple voices through collaborative approaches could strengthen future investigations (Ngunjiri et al., 2010). My positionality as an educated male student also frames my lens; studies centring more diverse standpoints could reveal additional insights. Overall, this study exemplifies both the affordances and limitations of highly personalised autoethnographic research.

Implications for Practice

Several practical implications also emerge from this study. For university leadership, the findings underscore the need to implement more robust anti-bullying education, streamline reporting procedures, apply fair consequences, and facilitate open dialogues on climate issues. Improving policies and data collection around bullying could help monitor progress over time. Centring student perspectives in reform efforts is essential for ensuring initiatives match lived realities. 

For student peers, this study highlights opportunities to become active bystanders by challenging bullying behaviours directly through confrontation or indirectly through distraction (Salmivalli et al., 2011). However, caution against expecting peers to carry full responsibility; youth still need adult guidance. For scholars, this autoethnography demonstrates the value of insider perspectives on bullying and school climate issues. Future research could expand insights by incorporating collaborative approaches and diverse student samples. Overall, these findings help illuminate pathways for continued progress in curbing the concerning persistence of bullying.

References

• Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography. London: Oxford University Press.
• Aslam, A., Muhammad, Y., & Nasir, L. (2022). Transgender students’ experiences of bullying: Some case study evidence. Global Social Sciences Review, 7(2), 71-80.
• Butt, S., Muhammad, Y., & Masood, S. (2021). Effectively dealing with bullying in elite schools: Principals’ perceptions and practices. Global Sociological Review, 6(3), 1-10.
• Campbell, M. (2015). Policies and procedures to address bullying at Australian universities. In Bullying among university students (pp. 157-171). Routledge.
• Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. PubMed, 41(164), 633– 648. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17240771
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.
• Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273-290.
• Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947216
• Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton- Century-Crofts.
• Lee, C.-H. (2010). An Ecological Systems Approach to Bullying Behaviors Among Middle School Students in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1664–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370591
• Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente. Available at . http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download
• Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740
• Muhammad, Y., Akhter, M., & Lala, G. E. (2019). Exploring online peer harassment experiences of female university students: A qualitative study.
• Muhammad, Y., & Brett, P. (2015). The challenges of undertaking citizenship education research in Pakistan. In S. Fan & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.), The Future of Educational Research (pp. 41-50). Sense Publishers.
• Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), 1-17.
• Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and an effective intervention programme. Promotion & Education, 1(4), 27-31.
• Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Smith, P. K., Thompson, F., & Tippett, N. (2012). The Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyberbullying on Victims: A European Cross-National Study. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21440
• Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612440172
• Rajpoot, S., Muhammad, Y., & Anis, F. (2021). Bullying in universities: A qualitative analysis of the lived experiences of students with special needs. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 4(1), 388-397
• Siddiqui, M. F., Muhammad, Y., & Naseer, H. (2021). Principals’ self-efficacy beliefs about managing bullying cases in secondary schools. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 4(1), 338-349.
• Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders Matter: Associations Between Reinforcing, Defending, and the Frequency of Bullying Behavior in Classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090
• Srabstein, J. C., McCarter, R. J., Shao, C., & Huang, Z. J. (2006). Morbidities associated with bullying behaviors in adolescents. School based study of American adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2006.18.4.587
• U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Dear colleague letter: Harassment and bullying. Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.
• Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School Bullying Among Adolescents in the United States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368– 375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
• Wozencroft, K., Campbell, M., Orel, A., Kimpton, M., & Leong, E. (2020). University student experiences of bullying, cyberbullying and differences by gender. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 126-140. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5505