discursive essay on bullying

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

How to write a discursive essay: step-by-step guideline

Updated 17 Jun 2024

Many students struggle with discursive writing as it can be tricky. It’s hard to manage different opinions and create a well-organized argument, leaving learners feeling unsure. In this article, we want to make creating discursive essays less confusing by giving helpful tips. If you grasp the essential information and follow our advice, you can tackle the challenges of this essay style and learn how to express convincing and well-thought-out ideas. Come with us as we explore the basic dos and don’ts for making successful writing.

What is a discursive essay? 

This type of academic writing explores and presents various perspectives on a particular topic or issue. Unlike an argumentative essay, where the author takes a clear stance on the subject, discursive writing aims to provide a balanced and nuanced discussion of different viewpoints. What is the discursive essay meaning? The first word implies a conversation or discussion. So, the text encourages an exploration of diverse opinions and arguments.

This homework, commonly assigned in higher academia, serves various purposes:

• Students analyze diverse perspectives, fostering critical thinking as they weigh different viewpoints before forming a conclusion.
• Such essays involve thorough research, requiring students to synthesize information from various sources and present a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
• When struggling with how to write my essay for me , students develop their communication skills as they should express complex ideas clearly and coherently, creating smooth transitions between arguments.
• While not demanding a fixed stance, discursive papers require persuasive writing skills. The authors present each perspective convincingly, regardless of personal endorsement.
• Encouraging an appreciation for the issue’s complexity, the essays promote tolerance for diverse opinions.

In summary, these papers contribute to developing analytical, research, and communication skills, preparing students for nuanced engagement with complex topics in academic and professional settings.

What is the difference between discursive and argumentative essays?

While these documents may exhibit certain similarities, it’s crucial to underscore the notable distinctions that characterize them, delineating their unique objectives and methodologies. 

Discursive essays

• Objective presentation: A five paragraph essay of this type aims to provide a comprehensive discussion on a particular topic without necessarily taking a clear stance.
• Multiple perspectives: Writers explore different viewpoints, neutrally presenting arguments and counterarguments.
• Complexity: These essays often deal with complex issues, encouraging a nuanced understanding of the subject.
• Balanced tone and language: Such writing allows for a more open expression of different ideas using objective and formal language. 
• Flexible structure: These texts allow for a free-flowing topic analysis and may express numerous ideas in separate sections. 
• Conclusion: While a discursive essay example may express the writer's opinion, it doesn’t necessarily require a firm conclusion or a call to action.

Argumentative essays

• Clear stance: This type involves taking a specific position and defending it with strong, persuasive arguments.
• Focused argumentation: The primary goal is to convince the reader of the writer's position, providing compelling evidence and logical reasoning.
• Counterarguments: While an argumentative essay acknowledges opposing views, the focus is on refuting them to strengthen the writer’s position.
• Assertive tone: This type aims to present ideas from the writer’s perspective and convict the reader using evidence and reasoning.
• Rigid structure: These texts come with a clear structure with a distinct introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs with arguments and reasoning, and a conclusion that highlights the author’s stance.
• Call to action or conclusion: Such papers often conclude with a clear summary of the arguments and may include a call to action or a statement of the writer’s position.

The key distinction lies in the intent: discursive texts foster a broader understanding by presenting multiple perspectives. At the same time, argumentative papers aim to persuade the reader to adopt a specific viewpoint through strong, focused arguments.

Save your time! We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Discursive writing types

When delving into discursive essay format, exploring three primary forms of writing is essential.

1. Opinion essay.

• In an opinion essay , your viewpoint on the discussed problem is crucial.
• State your opinion in the introduction, supported by examples and reasons.
• Present the opposing argument before the conclusion, explaining why you find it unconvincing.
• Summarize your important points in the conclusion.

2. Essay providing a solution to a problem.

• Focus on discussing an issue and proposing solutions.
• Introduce the issue at the beginning of the text.
• Detail possible solutions in separate body paragraphs.
• Summarize your opinion in the conclusion.

3. For and against essay.

• Write it as a debate with opposing opinions.
• Describe each viewpoint objectively, presenting facts.
• Set the stage for the problem in your discursive essay intro.
• Explore reasons, examples, and facts in the main body.
• Conclude with your opinion on the matter.

If you need professional writers' support when working on your homework, you may always pay for essay writing . Our experts can explain how to create different types of papers and suggest techniques to make them well-thought-out and compelling.

Discursive essay structure

Discover a concise outline that will help structure your thoughts and arguments, allowing for a comprehensive and articulate presentation of your ideas.

The length of the discursive introduction example and the number of body paragraphs can vary based on the topic's complexity and the text's required length. Additionally, adjust the outline according to specific assignment guidelines or your personal preferences.

10 steps to create an essay

Many students wonder how to write a discursive essay. With the following guidelines, you can easily complete it as if you were one of the professional  essay writers for hire . Look at these effective steps and create your outstanding text. 

1. Choose an appropriate topic:

• Select a topic that sparks interest and is debatable. Ensure it is suitable for discursive examples with multiple viewpoints.

2. Brainstorm your ideas:

• Gather information from various sources to understand different perspectives on the chosen topic.
• Take notes on key arguments, evidence, and counterarguments.

3. Develop a clear thesis:

• Formulate a thesis statement that outlines your main idea. This could include your stance on the topic or a commitment to exploring various viewpoints.

4. Create a discursive essay outline:

• Structure your text with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
• Outline the main points you want to cover in each section.

5. Write the introduction:

• Begin with a hook to grab the reader's attention.
• Provide background information on the topic.
• Clearly state your thesis or the purpose of the essay.

6. Create body paragraphs:

• Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence.
• Present different perspectives on the topic in separate paragraphs.
• Support each perspective with relevant evidence and examples.
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint.
• Use smooth transitions between paragraphs.

7. Suggest counterarguments:

• Devote a section to acknowledging and addressing counterarguments.
• Refute or explain why you find certain counterarguments unconvincing.

8. Write the conclusion:

• Summarize the main points discussed in the body paragraphs.
• Restate your thesis or the overall purpose of the essay.
• Provide a concise discursive essay conclusion, highlighting the significance of the topic.

9. Proofread and revise:

• Review your work for clarity, coherence, and logical flow.
• Check for grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors.
• Ensure that your arguments are well-supported and effectively presented.

10. Finalize and submit:

• Make any necessary revisions based on feedback or additional insights.
• Ensure every discursive sentence in your paper meets specific requirements provided by your instructor.
• Submit your well-crafted document.

Following these steps will help you produce a well-organized and thought-provoking text that effectively explores and discusses the chosen topic.

Dos and don’ts when completing a discursive essay

If you want more useful writing tips, consider the dos and don’ts to create an impactful and compelling text.

• Thorough research: Do conduct extensive research on the topic to gather a diverse range of perspectives and solid evidence. It will strengthen your discursive thesis statement and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the subject.
• Clear structure: Do organize your essay with a clear introduction, body paragraphs that present different viewpoints, and a concise conclusion. Use a separate paragraph to introduce every point. This structure helps readers follow your argument effectively.
• Neutral tone: Do maintain a balanced tone and impersonal style throughout the essay. Avoid being overly emotional or biased, as the goal is to present a fair discussion of various perspectives.
• Critical analysis: Do critically analyze each perspective, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Build your discursive thesis on trustworthy sources and make appropriate references following the rules of the required citation style. This showcases your critical thinking ability and contributes to a more nuanced discussion.
• Smooth transitions: Do use smooth transitions between paragraphs and arguments to create a cohesive flow. The use of linking phrases and words enhances the readability of your text and makes it easier for the reader to follow your line of reasoning.

Don’ts:

• Avoid biased language: Don’t use biased language or favor one perspective over another. Maintain an objective tone and present each viewpoint with equal consideration.
• Don’t oversimplify: Avoid oversimplifying complex issues. Acknowledge the nuances of the topic and provide a nuanced discussion that reflects a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Steer clear of generalizations: Don’t make broad generalizations without supporting evidence. Ensure that relevant and credible sources back your arguments to strengthen your position.
• Don’t neglect counterarguments: Avoid neglecting counterarguments. Acknowledge opposing views and address them within your discursive essays. It adds credibility to your work and thoroughly examines the topic.
• Don’t be too personal : Avoid expressing your personal opinion too persistently, and don’t use examples from your individual experience. 
• Refrain from unsupported claims: Don’t make claims without supporting them with evidence. Substantiate your arguments with reliable sources and statistics with proper referencing to enhance the credibility of your document.

By adhering to these dos and don’ts, you’ll be better equipped to navigate the complexities of writing a discursive text and present a well-rounded and convincing discussion.

Final thoughts 

Mastering the art of writing a discursive essay is a valuable skill that equips students with critical thinking, research, and communication abilities. If your essay-writing journey is challenging, consider seeking assistance from EduBirdie, a trusted companion that guides students through the intricacies of these papers and helps them answer the question, “What is discursive writing?”. With our support, you can navigate the challenges of crafting a compelling and well-rounded discourse, ensuring success in your academic endeavors. Embrace the assistance of EduBirdie and elevate your writing experience to new heights.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

Diversity essay: effective tips for expressing ideas.

In today's interconnected and rapidly evolving world, the importance of diversity in all its forms cannot be overstated. From classrooms to workpla...

Learn how to write a deductive essay that makes you proud!

Learning how to write a deductive essay may sound like a challenging task. Yet, things become much easier when you master the definition and the ob...

A Guide On How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay

This particular term refers to a type of essay written to discuss a specific idea, voice clip, written piece or a video, using purely one’s ideas, ...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

‘To understand bullying, we must address drivers of violence’

Drawing on her research and that of others in the field, Neziswa Titi, a researcher at the University of Cape Town's (UCT) Children’s Institute, explains that to understand the root cause of bullying, society must address the underlying drivers of violence in children’s environments.

In the last year, we have seen worrisome media reports of children bullying each other. The public has expressed grave concern with calls for schools to take action against children who violate their peers. In one particular case, we witnessed the detrimental psycho-social effects of bullying which can lead to suicide or children being unable to return to school.

The pervasive question lingering in the air, as if children are to blame, is, “Why do children abuse each other?”

Findings from my doctoral research that sought an in-depth understanding of the life stories of children who had experienced sexual trauma within a context of poly-victimisation (exposure to different forms of violence) in South African townships indicated bullying as one of the multiple forms of violence they experience.

While the study sought to understand how children made meaning of sexual trauma, surprisingly, children focused more on the detrimental effects of parenting, suggesting that parental physical and emotional abuse affected them more than sexual violence.

The findings also indicated, once again, the detrimental psychological and social effects of childhood in lone parenting and single mother households.

Children also reported that they live in perpetual fear of victimisation in the townships resulting from witnessing and experiencing different forms of violence at the same time.

To understand the root cause of bullying, we must address corporal punishment and the underlying drivers of violence in children’s environments. Films like Underground Railroad and 12 Years a Slave portray slavery and apartheid, with religion being used to promote and perpetuate corporal punishment.

The demonstrated brutal use of corporal punishment is therefore a historical form of punishment over subordinates. The generational repercussions of this kind of discipline is the ongoing historic trauma our society is dealing with today.

Given that humans are products of their environments and the integral role history plays in people’s realities, there is a need to acknowledge the impact of South Africa’s brutal and violent past on children’s realities. Historic trauma has a generational impact on cultural approaches to conflict resolution and informs parenting practices in the country as a whole.

The stressors that are embedded in the daily struggles of communities create frustration in households which result in mismanaged anger and violence, and this is, ultimately, both witnessed and experienced by children.

In a recent virtual session with Parliament, Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma outlined the root cause of the problems in South Africa, and identified the loss of land and forced removals; fathers and men living in dormitories away from their wives and children; cheap and long hours of labour; and job reservations for white people only with the economy being monopolised by a few.

These roots causes are the consequence of Apartheid laws with visible inequalities evidenced by the racial segregation in the make-up of townships and the suburbs, which means the majority of childhoods in South Africa are disadvantaged.

Franz Fanon in his classical work, Wretched of the Earth , aptly describes the locale in which most South African children live, calling it a damned zone. The violent colonial history and apartheid laws such as the migrant labour system and the construction of townships have had detrimental effects on family systems, and the presence of fathers in their children’s lives.

The works of Nhlanhla Mkhize, a professor of psychology and Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, demonstrates how this difference is attributable to the absence of collective child-rearing as a consequence of Western individualistic norms of parenting.

His views on culture, modernisation and fatherhood are supported by findings from the Understanding Fatherhood in South Africa report by Heartlines which outlines cultural (i.e. ilobolo and intlawulo), environmental (i.e. historical and migrancy), notions of masculinity, socio-economic and systemic factors (governmental and religious) as some of the drivers of absent fatherhood.

In the paper, Reflections on Parenting Practices that Impact Child-rearing in a Low-income Community , Naiema Taliep, Ghouwa Ismail and I demonstrate how parenting is influenced by the way societies are organised. Ineffective parenting practices have been associated with multiple negative social and health outcomes among young people, with children demonstrating low emotional intelligence and aggressive behaviours which both constitute bullying.

Social disorganisation, and family structure comprised of women-headed, single-parent families with poor parental monitoring and formal and informal social networks, influence a child’s outcomes.

Nonzuzo Mbokazi’s doctoral research explained how low-income, employed mothers navigate care strategies and childcare for their young children in KwaZulu-Natal while navigating work and mothering responsibilities in the absence of support from the father’s family.

This is demonstrated by the fact that single mothers lack parenting support which is an outcome of patriarchal norms which have rendered women with less economic power. Women’s lack of financial autonomy, in conjunction with an internalised violent response to stress, strips mothers of the ability to give nurturing care in the form of supportive, consistent, and involved parenting.

During the children’s hearings on the Children’s Amendment Bill (to adjust the Children’s Act) in Parliament on May 21, 2021, a Western Cape Government child monitor from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that “children are the outcome of parental performance.”

This means that when corporal punishment is used as a form of discipline, children learn to use force, violence and abusive speech as a means to be heard or seen, which are all forms of bullying.

While media reports are based on older children’s experiences of bullying (usually at school), bullying behaviours are evidenced quite early in children’s life courses, as is the case with toddlers whose emotions are not properly managed and do not possess the language to express their feelings as this has arguably not been modelled to them.

The question to be asked then is: “How would toddlers learn to manage their emotions and use positive vocabulary to express their feelings if this is not modelled by parents?”

Child outcomes are the responsibility of both parents. While, in the South African context, single motherhood and lone parenting are highly prevalent, all parents need support to unlearn the ineffective and abusive parenting practices currently being employed and to model healthy disagreement to children.

Women, due to patriarchal privilege for men, carry most of the parenting responsibility, and as such, children experience mothers to be more aggressive in parenting. To this effect, another child monitor in her submission to Parliament reflected on the emotional abuse of children by their mothers, describing them as rude and vulgar towards their children. The children, in turn, called for legal repercussions against mothers who are violent towards their children.

As with the South African Schools Act of 1996, which prohibits the use of corporal punishment on learners, corporal punishment by women against children in the home is seemingly only enforced in the most severe cases. It should, however, be noted that male-headed households also contain violent parenting practices with men violating both women and children.

In a webinar titled, Promoting an understanding of the intersections between violence against women and children organised by the Children’s Institute, UCT on 13 October 2020, researcher at the University of Johannesburg Lisa Vetten, unpacked the history underpinning men’s entitlement to uphold their sense of power through their perceived right to punish women and children.

While all children are affected by corporal punishment and bullying, black children experience multiple intersecting oppressions namely race, gender and class – in addition to age – leaving them at the bottom of the social ladder.

As a result, children across all races, social classes and genders are exposed to men’s and women’s violence against them.

When alone, children then violate and bully each other as an outlet for all the anger they have built up inside. This is to say, children experience and inflict violence on each other across all settings like at home, in school and within the community. They are therefore merely modelling society when bullying and harassing each other.

It is time we rethink how the country can begin reshaping how to express discomforts, how to listen to different perspectives and embrace change and agency.

In his seminal book, I Write What I Like , Steve Biko called it a “miracle” for someone to make it to adulthood in a township. Therefore, knowing the history and design of townships and its residual legacies, the law must be redressed to correct the miserable worlds of South Africa’s children through the Children’s Amendment Bill.

Apartheid laws created this misery that South Africa’s children and their caregivers find themselves in, therefore modern-day policies should make provision for fathers to have access to their children.

Parliament is currently conducting hearings on the Children’s Amendment Bill. To give children a better environment; the economic stressors and hard living conditions in which mothers must parent their children has to be addressed.

Focusing on the role that structural factors play in parenting can ensure that we address the “causes of the causes” concerning parental stressors which are transferred to children. The Children’s Amendment Bill must be amended to make provision for fathers to have equal parental responsibilities and rights as mothers and strengthen parental support for children.

Programmes are needed to help caregivers and parents learn alternative disciplining mechanisms to corporal punishment, which will, in turn, support parents with choosing better ways to discipline and engage with their children.

Considering our history, it must be acknowledged that South Africa is a traumatised country as we see in the hostility of its people and the behaviours of children.

A model that is a contradiction to the violent and aggressive persuasive parenting style and demand for authority is gravely needed to take care of bullying in its early stages.

Daily News RSS

Latest articles, embed article.

By embedding this news article on your site you are agreeing to  the University of Cape Town's terms of use.

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

Workplace Bullying Prevention: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Susan l. johnson.

University of Washington, Tacoma

To analyze the discourses of workplace bullying prevention of hospital nursing unit managers and in the official documents of the organizations where they worked.

Workplace bullying can be a self-perpetuating problem in nursing units. As such, efforts to prevent this behavior may be more effective than efforts to stop the behavior. There is limited research on how healthcare organizations characterize their efforts to prevent workplace bullying.

This was a qualitative study.

Critical discourse analysis and Foucault’s writings on governmentality and discipline were used to analyze data from interviews with hospital nursing unit managers (n=15) and organizational documents (n=22). Data were collected in 2012.

The discourse of workplace bullying prevention centered around three themes: prevention of workplace bullying through managerial presence, normalizing behaviors and controlling behaviors. All three are individual level discourses of workplace bullying prevention.

Current research indicates that workplace bullying is a complex issue with antecedents at the individual, departmental and organizational level. However, the discourse of the participants in this study only focused on prevention of bullying by moulding the behaviors of individuals. The effective prevention of workplace bullying will require departmental and organizational initiatives. Leaders in all types of organizations can use the results of this study to examine their organizations’ discourses of workplace bullying prevention to determine where change is needed.

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade workplace bullying has been identified as a concern for nurses in many countries and across many workplace settings (e.g. Quine 2001 , Johnson 2009 , Hutchinson et al. 2010a ). Workplace bullying is detrimental to the health of both targets and witnesses of bullying ( Nielsen & Einarsen 2012 , Reknes et al . 2014 ). It also negatively affects nurses’ job satisfaction ( Johnson & Rea 2009 , Laschinger et al. 2010 ), their productivity ( Lewis & Malecha 2011 , Berry et al . 2012 ) and contributes to medical errors ( Wright & Khatri 2014 , Laschinger 2014 ).

While workplace bullying was initially thought to be the result of an escalated conflict between individuals ( Zapf & Gross 2001 ), subsequent research indicates that environmental factors, such as leadership style ( Laschinger et al . 2012 ), oppressive working conditions and low job control contribute to the presence of bullying in healthcare organizations ( Hutchinson et al . 2010c , Purpora et al . 2012 , Rodwell & Demir 2012 ). Research also indicates that organizations can unwittingly reward bullying behaviors by promoting nurses who engage in these behaviors ( Katrinli et al . 2010 ), or by allowing bullying to operate as a form of ‘informal organizational authority’ ( Hutchinson et al . 2010b , p. 38). These findings suggest that organizational level interventions to prevent workplace bullying may be more effective than individual level interventions that address bullying after it has occurred (e.g., disciplining bullies) (Vartia & Leka 2010).

In healthcare, research has focused on focused on individual level interventions which involve direct confrontation of bullying behaviors by staff nurses ( Griffin 2004 , Stagg 2011 , Stagg 2013 , Ceravolo et al . 2012 ). While few studies have examined the long-term effects of these interventions, the research that is available suggests that individual level interventions may not result in significant behavioral change ( Stagg 2013 ) and that stopping workplace bullying once it has started can be a lengthy and arduous process ( Johnson 2013 ).

This study was based on critical management theory ( Alvesson & Deetz 2009 ), discourse theory ( Wodak & Meyer 2009 ; Willig 2009 ) and Foucault’s (1980) notions of governmentality. While critical management research can be negative and hyper-critical, it can also be transformative if the ultimate goal is to suggest ways of transforming managerial discourses and practices to make them more effective and humane ( Villadsen, 2007 ). Critical analysis gains depth when theoretical knowledge is used to help interpret and understand empirical data ( Alvesson & Deetz 2009 ). To that end, Foucault’s (1980 , 2010) theories on governmentality and discipline were chosen as the framework to organize the findings. This decision was made after an initial examination of the data revealed similarities between the way managers and organizations discussed workplace bullying prevention and the way management techniques were discussed in Foucault’s writings.

Foucault describes governmentality as the management of groups of people by states or organizations ( Foucault, 2010a ). To meet their goals, organizations need a well-regulated, self-disciplined workforce ( Jackson & Carter 1998 ). Since it is not possible for managers to directly supervise workers all the time, organizations operate on principles of a psychological contract, where employees learn to regulate their own work through adoption of the goals of the employer ( Villadsen, 2007 ). In this model, the goal of organizational discipline is the prevention of deviations of behaviors through the creation of a workforce that is responsible for controlling their own behavior ( Brivot & Gendron 2011 ).

Modern disciplinary power also operates through what Foucault (1980) calls the gaze, as well as through hierarchical observation ( Foucault 2010a ). The concept of the gaze was based on Bentham’s notion of the panopticon, a prison that was designed in such a manner that a lone guard from a central tower could oversee multiple inmates. A notable feature of the panopticon is the strategic use of lighting which allows the guards to see the inmates, but does not allow the inmates to see the guards. The purpose of this lighting is to make inmates believe they are under constant observation and to adjust their behaviors accordingly ( Foucault, 1980 ). Foucault noted that organizations can exert power in a similar manner, exerting control over multiple people through an ‘inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual will interiorize to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over and against himself’ (p. 154). Through knowledge of employees, regular performance evaluations and informal feedback, modern managers manifest this inspecting gaze, thereby establishing behavioral norms which the workers themselves eventually internalize ( Townley 1998 ; Villadsen, 2007 ). Managerial techniques which are based on individual self-regulation can be beneficial and can result in an autonomous, self-directed workplace. Where they fall short is when they are uncritically adopted in an attempt to resolve all workplace problems. This results in a situation wherein individual employees are blamed for problems or failures that are organization-wide ( Chauvière & Mick 2013 ).

In this paper, the discourses of workplace bullying prevention of healthcare organizations and nursing unit managers who work in these organizations are analysed. While there are many definitions of discourse, for this study discourse was defined as the language which is used when discussing a given concept, such as workplace bullying ( Willig 2009 ). This language is indicative of how the issue is conceptualized and how it is acted on. For example, if workplace bullying is predominately discussed in relationship to patient outcomes and negative effects on the health of targets of bullying are not discussed, this indicates that it is mainly viewed as a patient safety issue ( Johnson et al. 2015 ). The actions that would arise from this discourse would mainly involve protecting the safety of patients and the needs of workers would not automatically be addressed ( Johnson et al. 2015 ).

The specific aim of this study was to analyze discourses of workplace bullying prevention in documents produced by hospital systems and used by unit level managers who worked in these organizations.

This study involved critical and Foucauldian discourse analysis of semi-structured interviews with nursing unit managers and documents from hospital systems where they worked. Critical discourse analysis is a methodology which can be used to study how language informs social practice ( Wodak & Meyer 2009 ). In this study it was used to examine how language informs workplace bullying prevention. Foucauldian discourse analysis allows researchers to explore how language constructs selves and identities ( Willig 2009 ). In this study it was used to examine how managers use language in an attempt to shape employee’s behavior.

Participants

A purposive sample of unit level managers, who had been aware of workplace bullying in their organization, was recruited via announcements of the study on various email lists. Fifteen managers were interviewed. Participants came from seven different hospital systems in the Pacific Northwest region of the USA.

Data collection

All data were collected between January and April 2012. Data from the managers were collected via semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews that ranged from 45 minutes - 2 hours. Examples of questions that were asked are:

• How can workplace bullying be prevented?
• Describe your efforts to prevent the occurrence of bullying on your unit.
• Who has primary responsibility for preventing bullying?

The documents for the study were obtained from the human resource departments where the interviewees worked and from the publically available web sites of these organizations. Additionally, interviewees were asked to if there were any other documents they used to guide their management and prevention of bullying. Three interviewees added additional documents to the study. To be included, documents needed to address workplace bullying, or other non-physical violence between co-workers (e.g., harassment, disruptive behavior).

Ethical Considerations

The ethics committee of the researchers’ university approved the study. Informed consent was obtained from interviewees. Names of organizations and individuals were removed from both the interview transcripts and the organization documents prior to analysis.

Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked by the researcher for accuracy against the original recording. To aid with coding and tracking quotations, Atlas t.i 6.2, a qualitative software program, was used. The initial stage in the analysis process involved a careful reading of the interviews and organizational documents and highlighting all passages that pertained to prevention of workplace bullying. These passages were then grouped according to common themes. Initially, ten themes were identified. Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and the panopticon were used to more concisely group the data into three main themes and one sub-theme.

To ensure that the analysis is rigorous, a researcher who is using Critical Discourse Analysis needs to engage in a cyclical process of review of the data and reflection of the theoretical perspectives that inform the study ( Willig 2009 ). This was accomplished by a cyclical process that involved reading and re-reading the texts while referring to the writings of Foucault and other authors who have applied his ideas of governmentality to modern management practices. Critical discourse analysis can also be evaluated by assessing whether it produces reasonable and convincing results and an internally coherent narrative ( Willig 2009 ). This was accomplished by allowing other researchers who are familiar with both workplace bullying and Foucault’s theories to critique and comment on the findings.

Fifteen managers were interviewed. The majority ( n =14) were female and self-identified as white ( n =13). Participants were between 32–70 years of age ( mean =52, SD 9.2) and had 3–25 years ( mean =10, SD 6.5) of experience in nursing management. The discourse analysis revealed three main themes, presence, normalizing behaviors and control; and one sub-theme, presence in absentia. Each will be discussed in turn.

The managers in this study discussed their physical presence on the unit as an active deterrent to bullying. Although they might have as many as 100 direct reports, they said they made an effort to get to know each one and interact with their staff as often as possible:

But we make a point of interacting often. I will take breaks with them…and everybody gets a chance to just talk. There’s not a lot of person-personal barriers, um, because everybody kind of knows everything about everybody…And when there are issues, we’re really fast about dealing with them.’ (Participant 6)

In this passage, the manager describes a nursing unit with few interpersonal barriers, which allows her to ‘know everything about everybody.’

Emphasizing the lack of barriers on their units, managers also described an open door policy, which allows staff to drop by and share concerns at any time. This open door policy, which makes it easy for staff to report the co-workers’ behaviors, also gives managers the opportunity to ‘keep a ‘tic’ on the environment’ (Participant 14). The open door also allows the managers to observe the staff, who similarly to the inmates in the Panopticon, do not know when, or if, they are being observed.

In the hospital policy documents, there was also language which indicated that employee’s behaviors should be controlled through managerial presence. For example, ‘Supervisors may be disciplined for…failing to notice violations of this Standard of Conduct’ (Hospital 6) and ‘It is considered misconduct for a manager or supervisor who knows or should have known of workplace harassment to fail to address and report such behavior’ (Hospital 4). The use of the phrase ‘should have known of’ in the second example suggests that managers are not only expected to be omnipresent, but that they are also expected to be omniscient.

The managers acknowledged that one of the drawbacks with using presence as a deterrent is the possibility that individuals will develop strategies for avoiding surveillance. Staff could hide bullying behaviors by engaging in covert behaviors to bully others. As one manager said, ‘But I know she still subtly does it [bullying], you know, in little ways that I can’t actually write her up for’ (Participant 4). Managers discussed how the subtle nature of bullying could make it ‘invisible’ (Participant 8), which meant that it could not be observed.

Managers also said that prevention through presence was challenging because staff change their behaviors when the manager is on the unit:

I don’t see everything. I mean, in all honesty, people like to keep, they put their best behavior forward. I mean, if they care about that sort of thing. Um, but I think for-I mean, there’s an element of bullying that’s pretty sinister. And so people who are going to bully probably are smart enough to know when they should and when they shouldn’t. And when they shouldn’t would be when I’m around. (Participant 5).

To deal with this possibility, managers said they randomly show up on the unit. As one said, ‘I’d round all hours of the day so they never know when I’m going to be there’ (Participant 8). Another said, ‘a lot of times I will go in and show up early, you know, an hour or so early. And probably about every two months I do a nightshift’ (Participant 4). Managers also said they try to be around staff as much as possible so that, ‘…people aren’t at that heightened sense of awareness that, ‘Oh, the boss is here.’ And so then they will revert more to their more normal behaviors’ (Participant 5).

Since the managers knew they could not be everywhere and see everything on the unit, they talked about creating presence in absentia, the illusion of presence when it did not exist. This sub-theme will be discussed in the next section.

Presence in Absentia: Delegated authority

Because managers cannot be omnipresent, they said they delegate authority for prevention of workplace bullying to assistant managers, to nurses in charge of a given shift, or to staff in general. As one said:

I like to take responsibility, it’s up to the manager, but you cannot be there 24 hours a day and seven days a week, so you have to train the staff to recognize it and to, uh, stop it. Um, everybody takes responsibility. Just can’t have it. (Participant 12).

Hospital documents indicated that organizations also expected employees to monitor the behaviors of other employees and to report negative behaviors to their manager. For example, on hospital’s document contained the following language: ‘Any employee who is aware of any instances of disruptive behaviors should report the alleged act immediately to his or her supervisor’ (Hospital 3). While employees were encouraged to report even suspected violations of the code, they were also admonished that, ‘the submission of false or misleading reports of violations will not be tolerated’ (Hospital 3). While this language was written to prevent false accusations, it may also deter reporting of bullying if it involves behaviors that are covert or subtle.

Normalizing behaviors

The second element of the discourse was that workplace bullying could be prevented through the establishment of behavioral norms. As one manager said, ‘if you’re not out there to set expectations, people set their own’ (Participant 5), implying that without leadership, staff would revert to negative behaviors. In the documents, managers were also instructed to ‘lead by example’ (Hospital 2) and to, ‘embody the highest standards of behavior in all interactions’ (Hospital 2). Another hospital’s annual performance review rewarded employees and managers ‘who are a role model for behaviors and values’ (Hospital 3).

In addition to modeling appropriate behaviors, managers and documents discussed codifying behavioral expectations, either through a code of conduct or by writing down values all employees were expected to share. These values were linked to discussions of inappropriate behaviors, as in the following example, ‘Inappropriate and/or disruptive behaviors directly impact our values of teamwork, integrity & respect, staff satisfaction and ultimately patient safety’ (Hospital 1). To help employees internalize these behavioral expectations, codes of conduct were generally written in first person, plural, as in the following:

We will treat our patients, visitors and all other workforce members with courtesy and respect with our spoken and unspoken behavior. We will avoid any inappropriate and disruptive behaviors that may interfere with patient care delivery and services or any acts that interfere with the orderly conduct of the organization’s or individual’s abilities to perform their jobs effectively. (Hospital 4)

The managers also said they used the organizational values and codes of conduct to shape the unit’s culture:

These, these six core values… on our unit, we try to weave it into everything we do. Um, for example, um, when we interview, um, new people that are interested in a job, we talk about the core values. We talk about what we’re looking for. We, we mention them. We see if they’ve seen them on our website, if they’re aware of our core values….And I don’t want to kind of trivialize it, because, but we’ll say things like, ‘Yeah, well that doesn’t really exhibit our core value of kindness. Or do you think that feels collaborative?’ You know? (Participant 13)

While this manager indicates she shares the organizations’ values with current and prospective staff, by saying ‘I don’t want to kind of trivialize it,’ she seems to be stating that too much discussion of the values can make them sound banal and trivial.

Managers also discussed attempting to mould behaviors and to prevent bullying through education. This was done either on the unit, or by sending employees to outside classes. Managers said the goal of education was to teach staff how to behavior professionally, how to defuse conflict and how to communicate effectively. While some managers said educational efforts could be effective:

I have seen some substantial transformation, um, in employees once they’re, they’re guided and given the tools they need to do things right. And a lot of that just has to be, you know, scripting when they hit situations. (Participant 14).

Others admitted change could be difficult to sustain:

I can send them to a class on dealing with difficult people till the cows come home. And I have sent people to classes on that. But the thing is they don’t know how to come back and-and use the tools that they get. They’ll come back and they’ll be very excited … But they don’t know how to-to practice what they, what they learned …in those conferences. Or they get too scared to do it and then they just fall back into their old patterns of allowing that person to treat them that way. (Participant 8)

To reinforce educational offerings, managers said they try to ‘identify [individual] strengths and focus on those’ (Participant 10). Similarly, the policy documents instructed managers to ‘look for the positive in employees…and then recognize it’ (Hospital 2), to ‘inform staff of standards’ (Hospital 6) and to ‘assure all staff are aware of these standards’ (Hospital 4).

Control: Catching it early, enforcing behavioral standards

The third element of the discourse was that workplace bullying could be prevented through enforcement, or control. In this category, managers discussed preventing the spread of bullying by intervening early. As one said:

But I think if you can recognize the beginning of it, you can usually put an end to it right there and then. Um, without having to call it bullying. But implying that that is what it is. And with some people I-I say that, you know? You know, I say, you come-you’re coming across like a bully. (Participant 2)

While this manager is trying to convey the message that she is deals with bullying ‘in real time,’ thus preventing future occurrences, her reluctance to label behaviors as bullying suggests that staff who engage in these behaviors do not face real consequences. Furthermore, this manager, as well as other managers, said they preferred to informally talk with employees about their behaviors rather than pursuing formal disciplinary process, which was described as frustrating and time consuming. As one manager said:

Um and I believe dealing with it in real time…when HR and unions are involved, there’s so much that slows the process of holding conversations and dealing with things in real time sometimes, um, that that can be kind of frustrating. Because I-I’m a believer that dealing with things in real time is, uh, your best way to handle a-a lot of these things. (Participant 10)

When managers discussed dealing with behaviors ‘in real time’, it usually involved techniques such as ‘calling them out for bad behaviors’ (Participant 1), which they said was the responsibility of all of the staff and not just the managers:

It [confronting behavioral deviations] should be part of everyday life. If somebody says something snotty to you, somebody should say something that you’re being snotty. That should just be how we all communicate with each other. (Participant 14).

This language was reflected in the hospital’s policy which said:

Professional relationships are more easily maintained when each person is responsible for talking directly to the professional colleague involved when issues regarding behavior or language arise. (Hospital 8)

These policies create the expectation that every member of the organization is not only responsible for their own actions, but they are also responsible for monitoring the behaviors and language of their co-workers.

In this sample, the main discourse was that workplace bullying could be prevented through managerial presence, through the creation of behavioral norms and by controlling deviations of these norms. These discourses describe prevention efforts that seek to modify individual behaviors and to create a workforce who refrain from engaging in bullying behaviors. They are reminiscent of Foucault’s (1980 , 2010) discussion of modern disciplinary power, which is designed to create docile bodies that, primarily through self-regulation, behave according to institutional and societal expectations.

The first element of the managerial and organizational discourse was that workplace bullying could be prevented when managers were present on the unit and could monitor the behavior of staff. This discourse is similar to Foucault’s (1980) descriptions of the panopticon, which is designed in a manner that allows one centrally located guard to control the behavior of multiple inmates by creating the expectation that any given inmate might be watched at any given time. Similarly, the managers in this study said that observation was most effective when it occurs randomly and when staff did not know when or if they were being observed. To create the sense of presence when managers could not be on the unit, managers said they delegated authority to assistant managers, charge nurses and other staff.

While modern disciplinary power may have origins in techniques such as the panopticon, it also operates on the assumption that direct coercion is neither possible nor necessary to modify all behaviors ( Foucault 2010b ; Savage 1998 ; Villadsen 2007 ). To that end, organizations also expect employees, especially those who belong to the professional staff, to monitor their own behaviors, changing those which are not in agreement with the goals and values of the organization ( Jackson & Carter 1998 , Villadsen, 2007 ). In this study, managers acknowledged the limitations of the technique of using presence to deter workplace bullying. Therefore, the second element of their discourse was that it is important to establish and reinforce behavioral norms that allow employees to monitor their own behavior. This discourse was also present throughout the organizational documents, many of which discussed behavioral expectations and included codes of conduct for employees. Acknowledging the limitation of this preventive measure, which targets individual behaviors and does not change the conditions which give rise to these behaviors ( Vartia & Leka, 2011 ), the managers stated that despite their efforts to teach staff new norms of behavior, most eventually reverted to old, established patterns of interaction.

The third element of the managerial and organizational discourse was that workplace bullying could be prevented through control; by catching behaviors early and by calling attention to them when they occurred. Indeed, research indicates that codes of conduct will only deter workplace bullying if they are enforced ( O’Farrell & Nordstrom 2013 ). However, if disciplinary responses to incidences of bullying are not swift and effective, employees get the message that addressing these behaviors is not a priority ( Salin, 2003 ). The managers in this study indicated a preference for soft disciplinary techniques, such as merely pointing out deviant behaviors, without labeling them as bullying and pursuing formal disciplinary action. The unintended consequence of this disciplinary style is that it allows staff to engage in bullying behaviors with impunity. Rather than changing behaviors and preventing future bullying, this disciplinary technique may actually reinforce bullying by demonstrating a certain level of tolerance for it.

The discourses of prevention of workplace bullying identified in this study operate under the assumption that workplace bullying is an individual level problem. In contrast, current research indicates that organizational and departmental factors, such as leadership style, the amount of change in the organization and the intensity and pressure of the job, explain more of the variance in bullying than individual characteristics ( Salin & Hoel 2011 , Zapf & Einarsen, 2011 ). Consequently, the current recommendations are that prevention strategies should include organization-wide efforts such as management training, assessment of workplace stressors and workplace redesign to reduce these stressors ( Vartia & Leka, 2011 ). In addition to focusing on changing individual behaviors and interactions between employees, to prevent workplace bullying, organizations need to focus on improving the overall climate for employees ( O’Farrell & Nordstrom 2013 ).

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is that it was conducted in a specific place and time and may not be generalizable to other populations. However, the findings are transferable in that they can be used by researchers and practitioners to interrogate discourses and practices related to workplace bullying in other settings to determine why efforts to curtail workplace bullying are not succeeding and how these discourses and practices might be changed. Another limitation is that it only examined formal organizational documents, (i.e., policies) and discussions with managers in an artificial setting (i.e., interviews). Analysis of informal documents such as internal memos or emails, or observations of informal, natural discussions among members of an organization may add deeper insight into organizational and managerial discourses of workplace bullying prevention. This is an area where further research is needed.

By using a critical discourse analysis, this study demonstrated how organizational and managerial discourses on the prevention of workplace bullying operate on an individual level and how this discourse fails to address system-level issues that contribute to the problem. It is probable that organizations have never considered how working environments shape employees’ behaviors and how organizational practices contribute to problems such workplace bullying. Education of organizational leaders on the root causes of workplace bullying and on how to maintain and strengthen the psychological contract between employers and employees is a necessary step in the eradication of this occupational hazard. Critical discourse theory suggests that one way to bring about changes in social practices, such as workplace bullying prevention, is to change the discourse around these practices ( Wodak & Meyer 2009 ). Therefore, workplace bullying may be more effectively prevented when the discourse includes a discussion of the organizational factors which contribute to the phenomenon.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Why is this research needed.

• Workplace bullying, which is experienced by nurses globally, has negative repercussions on quality of care, on the health of individual nurses and on the retention of nurses.
• To avoid the negative outcomes associated with workplace bullying, organizations should work to prevent these behaviors from occurring.
• To date, there is little research that has examined what healthcare organizations are doing to prevent workplace bullying.

What are the key findings?

• Organizational documents and hospital nursing unit managers say that workplace bullying can be prevented through managerial presence on the unit, through establishment of codes of conduct and through controlling behaviors with disciplinary techniques.
• These discourses address individual level antecedents of bullying and do not address departmental or organizational climates which allow these behaviors to develop and flourish.

How should findings be used to influence policy/practice/research/education?

• Managers and organizations need to be informed about current research which indicates that workplace bullying is a systemic, rather than an individual, problem.
• Managers and organizations should examine how their language frames workplace bullying as an individual issue; and how this perspective can impede effective prevention.
• Future research should focus on what types of organizational initiatives are the most effective at preventing workplace bullying.

Acknowledgments

Funding Sources : Hester McLaws Scholarship, University of Washington, School of Nursing

National Institutes of Health-National Center for Research Resources (Grant 5KL2RR025015) to Dr. de Castro

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Grant 3T42OH008433) to the University of Washington Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety

Conflicts of Interest : None

Author Contributions:

• substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

* http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

• Alvesson M, Deetz S. Doing Critical Management Research. Sage; Los Angeles, California: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariza-Montes J, Muniz RN, Leal-Rodriguez A, Leal-Millan A. Workplace bullying among managers: A multifactorial perspective and understanding. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11 :2657–2682. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry PA, Gillespie GL, Gates D, Schafer J. Novice nurse productivity following workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2012; 44 :80–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowling N, Beehr T. Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006; 91 :998–1012. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brivot M, Gendron Y. Beyond panopticism: On the ramifications of surveillance in a contemporary professional setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2011; 36 :135–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceravolo DJ, Schwartz DG, Foltz-Ramos KM, Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence. Journal of Nursing Management. 2012; 20 :599–606. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chauvière M, Mick S. The French sociological critique of managerialism: Themes and frameworks. Critical Sociology. 2013; 39 (1):135–143. doi: 10.1177/0896920511431501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darbyshire C, Fleming VEM. Governmentality, student autonomy and nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008; 62 :172–179. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Einarsen S, Aasland MS, Skogstad A. Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly. 2007; 18 :207–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fejes A. Governing nursing through reflection: A discourse analysis of reflective practices. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008; 64 :243–250. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books; New York: 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault M. The Eye of Power. In: Gordon C, editor. Power/Knowledge. Vintage Books; New York: 1980. pp. 146–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault M. Right of Death and Power over Life. In: Rabinow P, editor. The Foucault Reader. Vintage Books; New York: 2010. pp. 258–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault M. Panopticism. In: Rabinow P, editor. The Foucault Reader. Vintage Books; New York: 2010b. pp. 206–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault M. The Means of Correct Training. In: Rabinow P, editor. The Foucault Reader. Vintage Books; New York: 2010a. pp. 188–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin M. Teaching cognitive rehearsal as a shield for lateral violence: An intervention for newly licensed nurses. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2004; 35 :257–263. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoel H, Glaso L, Hetland J, Cooper CL, Einarsen S. Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management. 2010; 21 :453–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson M, Vickers M, Jackson D, Wilkes L. Bullying as circuits of power. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 2010b; 32 :25–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson M, Vickers M, Wilkes L, Jackson D. A typology of bullying behaviours: The experiences of Australian nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2010a; 19 :2319–2328. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson M, Wilkes L, Jackson D, Vickers M. Integrating individual, work group and organizational factors: Testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing workplace. Journal of Nursing Management. 2010c; 18 :173–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson N, Carter P. Labour as Dressage. In: Mckinlay A, Starkey K, editors. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 1998. pp. 49–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SL, Rea RE. Workplace bullying Concerns for nurse leaders. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2009; 39 :84–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SL. International perspectives on workplace bullying among nurses: A review. International Nursing Review. 2009; 56 :34–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SL. An ecological model of workplace bullying: A guide for intervention and research. Nursing Forum. 2011; 46 :55–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SL. PhD. University of Washington; 2013. An Exploration of Discourses of Workplace Bullying of Organizations, Regulatory Agencies and Hospital Nursing Unit Managers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SL, Boutain DM, Tsai J, Beaton R, de Castro AB. An exploration of managers’ discourses of workplace bullying. Nursing Forum. 2015 doi: 10.1111/nuf.12116. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katrinli A, Atabay G, Gunay G, Cangarli BG. Nurses’ perceptions of individual and organizational political reasons for horizontal peer bullying. Nursing Ethics. 2010; 17 :614–627. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim KT. ‘Panoptic’ accountability: Supervisory leaders and normalizing or resisting professionals. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy. 2010; 7 :67–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laschinger HK. Impact of workplace mistreatment on patient safety risk and nurse-assessed patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2014; 44 :284–290. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laschinger HK, Grau AL, Finegan J, Wilk P. New graduate nurses’ experiences of bullying and burnout in hospital settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2010; 66 :2732–2742. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laschinger HK, Wong CW, Grau AL. The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2012; 49 :1266–1276. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laschinger S, Leiter MP, Day A, Gilin D. Workplace empowerment, incivility and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management. 2009; 17 :302–311. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis PS, Malecha A. The impact of workplace incivility on the work environment, manager skill and productivity. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2011; 41 :41–47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin GP, Leslie M, Minion J, Willars J, Dixon-Woods M. Bettween surveillance and subjectification: Professionals and the governance of quality and patient safety in English hospitals. Social Science & Medicine. 2013; 99 :80–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGIllivray D. Fitter, happier, more productive: Governing working bodies through wellness. Culture and Organization. 2005; 11 :125–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinlay A, Starkey K. Managing Foucault: Foucault, Management and Organization. In: McKinlay A, Starkey P, editors. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 1998. pp. 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinlay A, Taylor P. Through the looking glas: Foucault and the politics of production. In: McKinlay A, Starkey P, editors. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 1998. pp. 173–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work and Stress. 2012; 26 :309–332. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Farrell C, Nordstrom CR. Workplace bullying: Examining self-monitoring and organizational culture. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture. 2013; 3 (4):6–17. doi: 10.1002/jpoc.21079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parzefall MR, Salin D. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations. 2010; 63 :761–780. [ Google Scholar ]
• Purpora C, Blegen MA, Stotts NA. Horizontal violence among hospital staff nurses related to oppressed self or oppressed group. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2012; 28 :306–314. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quine L. Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology. 2001; 6 :73–84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reknes I, Pallesen S, Mageroy N, Moen BE, Bjorvatn B, Einarsen S. Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2014; 51 :479–487. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodwell J, Demir D. Oppression and exposure as differentiating predictors of types of workplace violence for nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2012; 21 :2296–2305. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salin D, Hoel H. Organizational causes of workplace bullying. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace. 2. CRC Press; New York, New York: 2011. pp. 227–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salin D. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations. 2003; 56 :1213–1232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage M. Discipline, Surveillance and the ‘Career’: Employment on the Great Western Railway 1833–1914. In: McKinlay A, Starkey P, editors. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 1998. pp. 66–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stagg SJ, Sheridan D, Jones RA, Speroni KG. Evaluation of a workplace bullying cognitive rehearsal program in a hospital setting. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2011; 42 :395–401. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stagg SJ, Sheridan D, Jones RA, Speroni KG. Workplace bullying The effectiveness of a workplace program. Workplace Health and Safety. 2013; 61 :333–338. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Townley B. Beyond good and evil: Depth and devision in the management of human resources. In: McKinlay A, Starkey P, editors. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 1998. pp. 191–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vartia M, Leka S. Interventions for the prevention and management of bullying at work. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. 2. CRC Press; New York, New York: 2011. pp. 359–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Villadsen K. Managing the employee’s soul: Foucault applied to modern management technologies. Cadernos EBAPE BR. 2007; 5 :1–10. doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512007000100002 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig C. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology Adventures in Theory and Method. Open University Press; New York: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wodak R, Meyer M. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: Meyer RW, editor. Methods of critical discourse analysis. 2. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California: 2009. pp. 1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright W, Khatri N. Bullying among nursing staff: Relationship with psychological/behavioral responses of nurses and medical errors. Health Care Management Review. 2014 doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000015. epub ahead of print. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapf D, Gross C. Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2001; 10 :497–522. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapf D, Einarsen S. Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace. 2. CRC Press; New York, New York: 2011. pp. 177–200. [ Google Scholar ]

Argumentative Essay on Bullying

Bullying is a widespread problem in schools a positive psychological and psychological impact on students-if. It leads to short-term and long-term outcomes, including concentration problems, learning difficulties, mental problems, depression, anxiety, etc. It may consist of threats, verbal and physical abuse, sarcasm, insults, and so on. There is no consensus among scholars and educators on how such misconduct should be prevented and punished. Personally, its complexity requires a collaborative approach, which means that parents, teachers, and students themselves need to be involved. Solutions to bullying in schools vary widely. Some parents and teachers believe that the situation is not hopeless for the lives of insignificant children. Many of them have been bullied and believe it is widespread in schools.

This attitude is hazardous because it discourages children from reporting incidents of abuse and leaving them face to face with their abusers. Some schools bear a tremendous degree of responsibility for ending bullying. They do not promote this type of behavior by imposing sanctions on victims and providing psychological support to victims. Student education is another typical approach to bullying, and some educational institutions offer bullying lectures.

Collaborating with bullies can also bring good results and because these students often need psychological support to overcome anger. Teachers, parents, and students working together is the most effective approach to the problem of bullying in schools. It is not enough to give talks while parents fail to give their children adequate attention and support at home.

Similarly, sanctions will not bring long-term consequences unless students are aware of the adverse effects of their behavior and know how to stop bullying in their groups. Parental education may also be effective because some families are unemployed.

  They see the importance of the problem and may not see their children’s requirements. As a result, schools, parents, and students must collaborate to eliminate bullying and make school a safer environment.

Download Pdf of Argumentative essay on Bullying

If you want to Download The pdf of the Argumentative Essay on Bullying then click on the given link it is Free of cost.

All Argumentative Essay

1 thought on “Argumentative Essay on Bullying in 300-400 Words | Free Pdf”

Hii, Thanks for visiting our blog to know the “Argumentative Essay on Bullying” and if you have any doubts or suggestions. Please comment below.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.