Qualitative Research Methods in The Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment
Qualitative Research Methods in The Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment
Qualitative Research Methods in The Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment
Contents
1 The Field of Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 Qualitative Research Methods in Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Sampling Techniques and Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Data Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Data Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Quality in Qualitative Workplace Bullying Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 The Fruits of a Qualitative Approach to the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional
Abuse and Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Understanding Targets and Target Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Bullying as a Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Reactions and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Response Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Bullies, Bystanders and Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7 HR and Organizational Policy in Bullying Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8 Organizational Characteristics That Contribute to Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
R. L. Cowan (*)
Queens University of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Toth
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Qualitative research methods have been used for over 20 years to explore and
illuminate workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. This chapter
brings together this wealth of research, synthesizing and discussing the data
collection techniques, samples and analytic methods used as well as the predom-
inant themes and discoveries of this research. Synthesis of this research points to
the bullying experience as a process, the risk factors of being bullied, reactions,
outcomes, response processes and how targets resist and seek justice. Qualitative
research efforts have begun to clarify other actors in bullying situations such as
bystanders, witnesses and human resources (HR). Organizational policy and
enactment of this policy have begun to be explored and further critiqued through
these methods, as well as organizational characteristics that contribute to bully-
ing. This synthesis brings into focus the strong contribution of a qualitative
approach to research on bullying, emotional abuse and harassment and should
continue to illuminate these phenomena into the future.
This chapter will focus on workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment
research conducted using qualitative research methods. The goal of this chapter is
not only to showcase, discuss and organize the existing qualitative workplace
bullying research but also to illuminate data collection methods, samples and
data analytic techniques in this research. To this end, we will first briefly review
the field and terrains of qualitative research and then discuss the data collection
techniques, samples and analytic methods used in this research. Lastly, we will
bring all of this research together by organizing and synthesizing the published
research that uses qualitative methods to explore workplace bullying, emotional
abuse and harassment.
Many have written of the terrains and goals of qualitative research methods (Denzin
& Lincoln, 1994; Flick, 2014; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lindloff & Taylor, 2011;
Tracy, 2013). Here, we will briefly review these for the reader to help situate the
workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment research discussed in this
chapter. Generally speaking, qualitative research methods is an umbrella term
referring to an array of techniques typically used to collect, describe, code and
interpret naturalistic data. Qualitative research methods are seen across disciplines
and have enjoyed a resurgence since the 1970s (Flick, 2014; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Qualitative research methods are often discussed as coming from the “naturalistic”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) paradigm or philosophical model for understanding our
world. Some of the hallmarks of the naturalistic paradigm include using an inductive
or bottom-up approach to theorizing and the idea that knowledge comes from
understanding those in the situated contexts and learning from their experiences.
In this sense, the researcher is not separated from the researched but is instead the
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 3
research instrument, immersed in the context under study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Lindloff & Taylor, 2011). Denzin and Lincoln (1994) discuss qualitative researchers
as “bricoleurs” (p. 2) who piece together stories, experiences and ideas in context
and “perform a large number of diverse tasks ranging from interviewing to observ-
ing, to interpreting personal and historical documents, to intensive self-reflection and
introspection” (p. 2). In this way, qualitative researchers go into the lives of others
and collect context-specific data from the actor’s point of view (Tracy, 2013). Often
the goal of a qualitative researcher is simply to try to understand “what is going on
here” and the transferability of this local knowledge (Lindloff & Taylor, 2011; Tracy,
2013). The impetus for transferring this knowledge is put on the audience or readers
of the research. They can take and use any of the parts that best connect with their
own understanding. However, it is the author’s responsibility to use thick descrip-
tion, or as much detail as possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lindloff & Taylor, 2011),
when writing research reports so that the audience can more easily transfer relevant
knowledge.
Qualitative research methods are also used in what some term the “critical”
paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Those conducting research from the critical
paradigm do not just attempt to understand the phenomena under consideration but
also seek to illuminate power structures and give voice to the idea that one knowl-
edge structure can be privileged over another and what the result of this privileging
can be (Giddens, 1984). In the case of workplace bullying, Dhar (2012) argues that a
qualitative research method “allows us to investigate workplace bullying behavior
within its real-life context, to incorporate the data critically, and to understand the
ways in which complex factors interact and generate real-life outcomes, as well as
the subjective perspectives of the various organizational actors” (p. 80).
Research questions generated by those interested in understanding the natural
world are often general and open ended and continue to develop and be refined as the
researcher learns more about the context under consideration (Lindloff & Taylor,
2011). Some of the important areas qualitative researchers have focused on
concerning workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment have been to better
understand these phenomena from different actor points of view, how targets cope
with and resist this negative behaviour, and organizational characteristics associated
with bullying cultures.
As stated previously, qualitative research is an umbrella term for an array of
techniques for collecting, describing, coding and interpreting naturalistic data, which
can then be used to answer some of these research questions. Some of these data
collection techniques include observation, interviewing, focus groups, collecting
documents or artefacts, engaging in activities in the context or even being fully
immersed in the context under study (e.g. ethnography) (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
Qualitative researchers often reflect on their experiences, creating memos and
reflections about their time in the field (Charmaz, 2000; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;
Tracy, 2013). Some also discuss the iterative nature of qualitative data collection/
analysis, which sees the researcher moving back and forth between the field and their
reflections to the existing research on the subject, attempting to interpret and
construct “what is going on”. Tracy (2013) suggests, “This is a reflexive process
4 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
in which the researcher visits and revisits the data, connects them to emerging
insights, and progressively refines his/her focus and understandings” (p. 184).
Data are turned into texts and analysed with an array of techniques, including
thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Owen, 1984), grounded theory (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990), phenomenology (Eberle, 2014), narrative analysis (Boje, 2001;
Czarniawska, 1997), types of discourse analysis (Tirscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter,
2000) and others. Sometimes these efforts result in inductive theories that can then
be tested and further refined, while others generate knowledge that can and is being
used to practically address the issues of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and
harassment. Qualitative researchers studying our topic have used several of these
techniques to better understand the phenomena and illuminate power structures
important for implementing positive and practical change. In the next section, we
will discuss the qualitative methods used in this research.
In this section, we will discuss, synthesize and organize the qualitative research
methods used to study bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. After reviewing
the available qualitative research, we have categorized our findings and will discuss
typical data collection techniques and procedures, including samples and data
collection methods, data analysis techniques and the efforts and techniques used to
ensure trustworthy and credible research.
We found several ways qualitative researchers recruit and access their participants.
These included the use of flyers, listservs and pamphlets (Dhar, 2012; D’Cruz,
Noronha, & Beale, 2014; MacIntosh, 2012; Karatuna, 2015); personal networks
(Cowan, 2012); anti-bullying organizations (Karatuna, 2015; Lutgen-Sandvik,
2006); lists of organizations by sectors that can be contacted to see if they would
volunteer (Baillien, Neyens, & De Witte, 2008; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013a, 2013b,
2014); professional HR, organizations (Cowan, 2011, 2012, 2013; Cowan & Fox,
2015; Harrington, Rayner, & Warren, 2012); union representatives (Lewis, 2004);
daily newspaper and homepage announcements (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006);
newspaper, radio and computer advertising (O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); flyers
at hospitals (Hutchinson, Vickers, Wilkes, & Jackson, 2010); support groups
(Shallcross, Sheehan, & Ramsay, 2008b); and mailed surveys (Simons & Mawn,
2010) to name just a few. Purposeful or criteria sampling (Tracy, 2013) seemed to be
used quite often, as researchers wanted to access particular populations with specific
experiences of bullying, emotional abuse or harassment (see Celep & Konakli, 2013;
Dhar, 2012; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2014; Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006; Lutgen-
Sandvik, 2006; Yaman, 2010). This was often combined with snowball sampling
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 5
(see Karatuna (2015) and Tye-Williams & Krone (2017) as examples) and conve-
nience sampling (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2012, 2013a; Lewis & Orford, 2005;
Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999).
Whom does this elicit in terms of a sample? A wide variety of professionals in
various positions and sectors have been sampled to answer questions related to
bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Much of the existing qualitative research
has engaged the self-identified target voice in education (Celep & Konakli, 2013;
Lewis, 2004; Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999; Yaman, 2010), call centre employees
(D’Cruz & Noronha, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2015), medical staff (Mac-
Intosh, 2006), information technology (IT) employees (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013b;
D’Cruz, Noronha, & Beale, 2014), nurses (Efe & Ayaz, 2010; Hutchinson, Vickers,
Jackson, & Wilkes, 2005; Simons & Mawn, 2010), manufacturing (Dhar, 2012),
police officers (Miller & Rayner, 2012) and fire service officials (Archer, 1999).
Other voices engaged include bystanders and witnesses (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2010;
Lee, 2000), HR professionals and employee assistance programme (EAP) profes-
sionals (Cowan, 2011, 2012, 2013; Ferris, 2004; Harrington, Rayner, & Warren,
2012), those who work in the environment (Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999; Lutgen-
Sandvik, 2006) and organizational insiders or “subject matter experts” in organiza-
tions (Baillien, Neyens, & De Witte, 2008). Samples also include a wide variety of
countries/regions. Some examples include India (see the D’Cruz & Noronha stud-
ies), Turkey (Celep & Konakli, 2013; Efe & Ayaz, 2010; Karatuna, 2015; Yaman,
2010), the United Kingdom (UK) (Harrington, Rayner, & Warren, 2012; Harrington,
Warren, & Rayner, 2015; Lee, 2000), Belgium (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De
Cuyper, 2009), the United States (USA) (see the Lutgen-Sandvik et al. studies),
Sweden (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006), Canada (Ferris, 2004; MacIntosh, 2012),
Australia (see the Hutchinson et al. studies) and Germany (Zapf & Gross, 2001).
Sample sizes ranged from 8 (Celep & Konakli, 2013; Shallcross, Sheehan, &
Ramsay, 2008b) to 126 participants who were interviewed (Baillien, Neyens, &
De Witte, 2008), and up to 184 open-ended responses via mail (Simons & Mawn,
2010). Many of the samples fell between 10 and 60 participants (see Dhar, 2012;
Harrington, Rayner, & Warren, 2012; Harrington, Warren, & Rayner, 2015; Hutch-
inson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2005; Lee, 2000; Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999;
Miller & Rayner, 2012). As is common in qualitative research, several authors
discuss saturation as the main driver of sample size. For example, Simons and
Mawn (2010) discuss their categories were saturated after the first 100 responses
but continued coding the rest of the data. And Karatuna (2015) states, “This sample
size was determined by the saturation of data collected as reflected in the repeated
words, sentences, or phrases” (p. 24).
When participant age was reported, it ranged from 20 to 60 years (Dhar, 2012;
Lewis, 2004; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2010, 2012, 2013a, 2015; Karatuna, 2015; Lee,
2000; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016; Simons & Mawn, 2010), with mean ages in
the 40s (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006; Lewis, 2004; MacIntosh, 2012; Tracy,
Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006), in the 30s (Dhar, 2012; Karatuna, 2015; Simons
& Mawn, 2010) and in the 20s (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2010, 2013a, 2014, 2015;
Tye-Williams & Krone, 2015). Many samples included a fairly even representation
of both male and female participants (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015;
6 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006; Lee, 2000), though others were specifically focused on the
male (O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016) or female experience of bullying (MacIntosh,
2012). Some of this research demonstrated that access can be an issue (D’Cruz &
Noronha, 2012, 2013a), as can be the lack of interest by employers to participate or
allow access to bullying research (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007).
notes and reflections, as well as correspondence with others during the time of abuse,
both authors discuss their own experiences of abuse with the goal of further
illuminating this experience and also helping others. Zabrodska, Ellwood, Zaeemdar
and Mudrak (2016) discuss using a combination of focus group and narrative
autoethnographic methods to probe the workplace bullying experiences of five
higher education instructors and their sense-making of the first hostile acts,
discussing this method as “collective biography” (see p. 140).
Texts and existing narratives were also used as data sources in the qualitative
workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment research. A wide variety of
existing texts were used by themselves or with other types of data to answer research
questions and aims. Cowan (2009) collected online, publicly available stories of self-
identified targets to better understand how targets seek justice in workplace bullying
situations. Simons and Mawn (2010) collected responses to a mailed, open-ended
question focusing on the stories of new nurses. Cowan (2011) collected organiza-
tional policies meant to address bullying. Hodson, Roscigno and Lopez (2006) and
Roscigno, Lopez and Hodson (2009) drew on 158 workplace ethnographies
published as books and analysed these through content analysis to better understand
organizational context, status and power and their relationship to workplace bully-
ing. Shallcross, Sheehan, & Ramsay, (2008b) collected emails between members of
a virtual community and documents such as medical records, along with conducting
interviews with targets. And Sumner, Scarduzio and Daggett (2016) used episodes
from the popular television show The Office (the US version) and analysed these for
bullying behaviours, shedding light on the social discourses that perpetuate bullying.
Although already robust, data collection in the study of workplace bullying,
emotional abuse and harassment could be strengthened by harnessing the power of
crystallization (Ellingson, 2008). Here, researchers use multiple types of data from
multiple sources and points in time to gain a more in-depth and expansive under-
standing of the issue. Some examples we found include Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik and
Alberts (2006) who used interviews and focus group data, Cowan (2011) who used
both texts and interviews and Fahie (2014) who used interview findings and his own
personal story. We found several other examples; see our section on Quality in
Qualitative Workplace Bullying Research specifically. Some areas that could be
expanded upon would be to engage targets, bystanders, family members and HR
(and other actors) at multiple points in time throughout the bullying experience. This
would help us understand the life cycle of bullying, emotional abuse and harassment
from multiple perspectives and how it works to change the organization and the
people involved as well as possible points of intervention.
Data collection and data analysis often happen at the same time in qualitative
research (Lindloff & Taylor, 2011; Tracy, 2013), and this is true of many of the
qualitative studies we found. Several authors discuss analysing data (interviews,
memos, reflections) as it was collected, developing categories and themes based on
8 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
this data and then collecting more data, further developing and refining these
emergent categories and themes (Tracy, 2013). The main types of data analysis
used in this research were grounded theory (see Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Strauss,
1967; and Strauss & Corbin, 1990), thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2006;
Owen, 1984; and Van Maanen, 1988) and qualitative content analysis (Dey, 1993).
Qualitative analysis software, such as NVivo and Atlas, were used in some of the
research to help organize and categorize large amounts of textual data (see Hutch-
inson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2005; Karatuna, 2015; O’Donnell & MacIntosh,
2016; Shallcross, Sheehan, & Ramsay, 2008b; and Simons & Mawn, 2010).
There were some interesting deviations from these norms. Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik
and Alberts (2006) discussed using a “grounded metaphoric analysis” technique
where they used grounded theory procedures, such as the constant comparative
method and open coding, to categorize the metaphoric language used by targets
describing how bullying felt and how it felt to be a target of bullying. And
Tye-Williams and Krone (2015) used the constant comparative technique (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990) along with a narrative analysis technique influenced by Fisher’s
(1984) narrative world paradigm and Boje’s (2001) antenarrative. Antenarratives
acknowledge that stories can be “too unconstructed and fragmented to be analyzed
by traditional approaches” (Boje, 2001, p. 1). These methods helped the authors
uncover the narrative forms of participants and the idea that these narrative forms
were influenced by co-workers. And Harrington, Warren and Rayner (2015) used
critical discourse analysis to look critically at the language being used by participants
in order to determine the larger discourses present or being drawn on in responses to
bullying.
more transparent. Fahie (2014) discusses self-care for the researcher when investi-
gating sensitive topics such as workplace bullying and the impact the researcher has
on the scene and their positionality in the research. Vickers (2007) begins her piece
reflecting on her own experiences of bullying and how coming to explore and write
about this time was difficult: “I hoped that looking back on events after a significant
passage of time would prove helpful in enabling me to go beyond the emotion that is
inexorably tied to those memories, towards understanding, something that would
have been more difficult at a time closer to the events shared” (p. 224). Sobre-Denton
(2012) also discusses her positionality and the complexity of writing her piece,
“through my struggle with these complex topics, I hope to help other people like me
to learn how to talk about these issues” (p. 224).
Several other tools were used in the studies we found in an effort to make the
findings trustworthy and credible, including triangulation, prolonged engagement,
consensual and expert validation, inter-coder reliability, member checks and audit
trails. Both data and researcher triangulation were discussed. Triangulation refers to
the idea of having multiple perspectives or types of data, as well as multiple
collectors of these data (Tracy, 2013). Triangulation is used to gain a fuller, more
complete and concrete picture of the issues under investigation. D’Cruz and
Noronha (2012) and D’Cruz, Noronha and Beale (2014) discuss their use of
investigator triangulation, and several other qualitative studies also employ data
triangulation by using multiple sources and types of data. For example, Efe and Ayaz
(2010), Cowan (2011), Archer (1999) and Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik and Alberts
(2006) all used multiple types of data such as organizational documents, interviews,
surveys and focus groups. D’Cruz and Noronha (2010) and Lewis (1999) used
multiple sources of data, including interviews with HR, unions, self-identified
targets and bystanders.
Expert validation, or asking an expert in the field to check methodology, research
process and confirmability through audit trails, was also used to ensure trustworthi-
ness. For example, Fahie (2014) wrote that she discussed “the research process with
a supervisor/mentor/colleague on a systematic basis as a means of debriefing and
understanding what has occurred” (p. 13). Celep and Konakli (2013), Karatuna
(2015), D’Cruz and Noronha (2012) and Shallcross, Sheehan, & Ramsay, (2008b)
all discuss how their research process and/or interpretations and findings were
discussed with experts and validated. Similarly, others discuss maintaining audit
trails for purposes of confirmability (Dhar, 2012; Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, &
Wilkes, 2005). Member checks were also used to determine the credibility of
interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Celep and Konakli (2013), Cowan (2011,
2012), Dhar (2012) and Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) all discuss going back to partici-
pants with their overall interpretations and findings to determine if they are reflective
of the participants’ experience.
Finally, transferability as a goal is widely discussed in this research (see Dhar,
2012; Fahie, 2014; Harrington, Rayner, & Warren, 2012; Karatuna, 2015; Shallcross
et al., 2008b; Sobre-Denton, 2012; and others). To ensure their findings were
transferable to other, similar contexts, many of the qualitative researchers discussed
giving as much information and detail as possible, using thick description and
10 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
quoting extensively from interviews and other data sources. Overall, the data
collection procedures and the techniques used to signal quality in the workplace
bullying, emotional abuse and harassment domain suggest a body of rigorous,
trustworthy data. In the next section, we will discuss and synthesize the qualitative
research in this domain, illuminating where we have been and where we still need to
go.
A qualitative approach has proved very fruitful in uncovering the idea that bullying,
emotional abuse and harassment are indeed processes and has revealed the behav-
iours experienced in this process. Using a qualitative approach, researchers are able
to uncover what targets interpret as bullying and how these behaviours are experi-
enced in context. This research not only points to a myriad of specific behaviours
that are interpreted as bullying but also to the complexity of bullying and mobbing
experiences and illuminates the confusion and isolation a target often feels trying to
locate and describe what is happening to them. For example, Keashly (2001) found
physical behaviours were much less common than non-physical behaviours and
indirect/passive behaviours were less common than direct behaviours. She also
found emotional abuse hard to describe; behaviours are often subtle or hidden and
hard to understand unless you go through it yourself. In an early study, Liefooghe
and Olafsson (1999) found that bullying is not necessarily an objective reality but
can be classified as a series of events that may or may not be conceptualized as
bullying. Tye-Williams and Krone (2015) found targets tended to tell “chaos narra-
tives” where even describing what occurred is difficult for the target as they feel
fragmented and isolated. Other narratives were just reporting the facts of what
occurred, and some were even narratives depicting a transformative journey.
Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik and Alberts (2006) found bullying targets describe the
process as a game or battle where bullies play dirty, a nightmare, torture or even a
noxious substance.
Qualitative research methods have helped us uncover the reality that bullying is a
process. Zabrodska, Ellwood, Zaeemdar and Mudrak (2016) point to the importance
of the first hostile acts experienced by a target and how they are made sense of by
victims and perpetrators. Lutgen-Sandvik (2008) illuminated this process and found
a pre-bullying stage where behaviour is misinterpreted or confusing but is still
destabilizing; phase two is the bullying phase where the behaviours become more
direct and are unmistakably aggressive. Post-bullying stage occurs when either bully
or target leaves the organization, often characterized by grieving and how to reframe
the experience and incorporate it into their identity narrative.
The qualitative approach has uncovered a myriad of behaviours at work that are
seen as bullying and harassment. Some of these included information or resources
withheld (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); making
work roles/tasks more difficult (Hutchinson, Vickers, Wilkes, & Jackson, 2010);
being ignored; facing unrealistic expectations (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003);
belittling remarks (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003; Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett,
2016); sexual or practical jokes (Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016); disrespect
(MacIntosh, 2006); personal attacks (Hutchinson, Vickers, Wilkes, & Jackson,
2010); attempts to damage reputation, credibility and competence (Hutchinson,
Vickers, Wilkes, & Jackson, 2010; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); humiliation
(Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016; Sumner, Scarduzio,
& Daggett, 2016); verbal and physical threats (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003;
O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); manipulation, coercion or intimidation (MacIntosh,
2006; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); teasing or being blamed, excluded/isolated,
12 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
punished and yelled at (O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016); and misuse of authority
(Sumner, Scarduzio, & Daggett, 2016). Celep and Konakli (2013) found that staff at
a university in Turkey who were victims of mobbing experienced actions damaging
to their performance and personal values and traits. And D’Cruz and Noronha
(2013b) found workplace bullying can occur online, with targets feeling that tech-
nology provides yet another avenue for bullies to harass them. The online nature can
broaden the scope of the behaviours experienced and remove temporal or spatial
boundaries that previously constricted bullies; they also found traditional and cyber-
bullying were often experienced together.
A qualitative approach has also helped us better understand the risk factors that
contribute to a person being targeted with bullying and harassment and the anteced-
ents to bullying situations. This research has engaged the target’s voice, as well as
others in the organization such as organizational insiders and human resource
personnel (HRP). Strandmark and Hallberg (2007) found targets either felt that
they came across interpersonally as strong and threatening or as vulnerable and
sensitive, and in either case, they felt like these personal characteristics led to their
victimization. They also believed having restricted participation opportunities,
conflicting values, poor leadership and unclear work roles could lead to conflicts,
frustration and, ultimately, bullying. Baillien, Neyens and De Witte (2008)
interviewed “subject matter experts” in Belgium such as prevention advisors,
union representatives and employees of the social service and HRP to better under-
stand the risk factors associated with bullying and harassment (as well as sexual
harassment and violence) and found having a high workload, complex or ambiguous
tasks, job insecurity and a bad physical work environment were all risk factors for
bullying.
In another qualitative study examining cases of workplace bullying, Baillien,
Neyens, De Witte and De Cuyper (2009) found those who feel frustrated and lack
coping mechanisms to deal with that strain and frustration are more likely to
experience bullying. For example, an employee might feel frustrated about work
strains and then engage in withdrawal behaviour, which can in turn decrease
performance and create negative attitudes in others, leading to being targeted.
They found that if conflicts exist, those who can use conflict management strategies
to de-escalate conflict can decrease bullying occurrences. If those conflict manage-
ment skills are lacking, then the less powerful person in the conflict can become a
victim of bullying (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009). Research
engaging the HRP specifically has suggested that HRPs believe bullying can be
caused by poor communication skills by any of the parties, having an aggressive
management style, whether the organizational culture accepts the behaviours or not,
personality differences or current societal issues (Cowan, 2013). HRPs believe that
sexual orientation, being too timid or too outspoken or inquisitive, and vulnerability
after an illness could all be risk factors of becoming a target, whereas belonging to
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 13
certain demographic groups, having social skills and being successful and competent
in one’s job could perhaps buffer from experiencing bullying (Lewis, 1999).
Qualitative research methods have been integral in illuminating the outcomes and
reactions of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. We know through
qualitative research that targets perceive bullying as a traumatic life event with long-
term implications for health and well-being (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006). We
know going through a bullying or harassment experience threatens and reshapes the
target’s identity (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2012; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008; Vickers, 2007).
Indeed, D’Cruz and Noronha (2012) found that targets’ identities were threatened,
leading to the need to “clarify their world” and re-establish their identity and dignity.
Lutgen-Sandvik (2008) analysed target narratives of bullying experiences and found
they needed to engage in intensive remedial identity work. This identity work
occurred in phases, including stabilizing work, sense-making, reconciling, repairing,
grieving and restructuring. Targets of cyberbullying experienced many harmful
physical and emotional effects such as sleep problems, gastrointestinal issues,
fatigue, anxiety, depression and emotional exhaustion (D’Cruz & Noronha,
2013b). Targets of mobbing experienced many negative outcomes such as stress,
pessimism and suicidal thoughts, as well as job performance and attendance issues,
and these effects can spill over into their personal life (Celep & Konakli, 2013).
Qualitative research efforts have uncovered a myriad of negative outcomes of
bullying, including confusion, frustration, anger, fear, isolation, feeling
unappreciated (Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003), stress, depression (Ayoko, Callan,
& Härtel, 2003; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016), feeling powerless, humiliation
(Ayoko, Callan, & Härtel, 2003; Lewis, 2004), anxiety, panic attacks, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, poor relationships and finances (O’Donnell &
MacIntosh, 2016), ambivalence (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2015), lower self-esteem, guilt
(Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006), shame (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006; Lewis, 2004)
and mental illness (Lewis, 2006). Negative physical side effects are also discussed,
such as fatigue (O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016), headache, stomach issues/gastro-
intestinal distress (Hallberg & Strandmark, 2006; O’Donnell & MacIntosh, 2016),
hypertension and existing disease symptoms worsening (Hallberg & Strandmark,
2006). Qualitative research efforts have also revealed how targets respond to bully-
ing, emotional abuse and harassment.
Through qualitative research methods, we have heard from targets and others about
the responses to this abuse. Particularly, this research has uncovered specific
response processes by those targeted, including how they cope with the abuse and
14 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
how they resist and try to seek justice in these situations. All of these topics will be
discussed.
2.5.2 Coping
Qualitative research efforts have uncovered the nuances in how targets cope with the
abuse experience. Social support was a significant idea uncovered in some of the
studies with targets seeking support from those with similar experiences (Lewis,
2004; Lewis & Orford, 2005). Lewis and Orford (2005) found female targets drew
upon their relationships and tried to get social support from others by asking others
to listen to them and being able to disclose what they were experiencing. However,
the experience had a ripple effect over time on relationships that were both outside
and inside the workplace, reducing support availability in multiple domains of the
target’s life. This in turn made it hard for women to maintain their self-beliefs.
O’Donnell and MacIntosh (2016) found male targets took some form of action, but it
was not always helpful, and the organizational response could be to work from
home, isolating them further. Vickers’ (2007) research adds to the nuance of the
coping experience and argues the experience of bullying can make people engage in
behaviours that are not considered normal coping mechanisms, including being
more passive-aggressive, secretive and defensive. However, all is not negative, as
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 15
Lee (2000) argued that it is helpful that a workplace bullying discourse has emerged
and been established by the popular press as it allows workers to draw on that when
they see or experience bullying in the workplace. Celep and Konakli (2013) echo
this as they argue social awareness of legal sanctions pertaining to mobbing could
help reduce its occurrence.
Bullies, bystanders and witnesses have received less attention than targets from
qualitative researchers studying bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. How-
ever, in recent years this seems to be changing as the importance of these actors is
coming into focus (Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2011; Tye-Williams & Krone,
2015, 2017). We are learning more about bullies, bystanders and witnesses from
target stories, as well as from narrations of their own experiences. Qualitative
16 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
research has helped us uncover characteristics of bullies; specifically, they are group
leaders and to a lesser extent co-workers, subordinates and even customers (Ayoko,
Callan, & Härtel, 2003; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2014; Efe & Ayaz, 2010). Tracy,
Lutgen-Sandvik and Alberts (2006) found that targets likened bullies to royalty,
narcissistic dictators, two-faced, evil beings and even demons. Harrington, Warren
and Rayner’s (2015) research echoed the idea that bullying is often perpetrated by
bad managers who lack the necessary skills to effectively manage. These managers
were characterized as driven and ambitious and some seemed untouchable because
of their organizational rank and status. Similarly, Celep and Konakli (2013) found
those who engaged in mobbing were inadequate in their role and were willing to
abuse their rights. Baillien, Neyens and De Witte (2008) found bullies tend to have
more social control, less job insecurity and greater autonomy, and those who are
frustrated and using ineffective coping mechanisms tended to project their frustration
and become bullies. Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson and Wilkes (2006) found bullies
can form predatory alliances where their loyalty to each other means they conceal
each other’s behaviours. Their behaviour can be not only tolerated but rewarded with
promotions and protections. Bloch’s (2012) interview with self-identified perpetra-
tors found that they saw targets as “norm breakers” (p. 174). This evaluation elicited
negative emotions in the perpetrator and negative actions against the targeted.
Because of this, the perpetrators felt justified in their bullying actions. And Jenkins,
Zapf, Winefield and Sarris (2012) found those accused of bullying attributed their
behaviour to the stressful work environment and not being able to constructively
cope with this environment. These authors also found inappropriate social behaviour
as an antecedent to being accused, and those accused felt organizational policies and
their need to manage conflicts and difficult employees were reasons they were
accused of bullying.
Shifting our attention to bystanders and witnesses, Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) found
witnesses were disturbed by what they saw and spent a significant portion of time
worrying about it and brainstorming how to avoid being abused, though they
sometimes lodged informal complaints with organizational authorities. Similarly,
Tye-Williams and Krone (2015) found that when bullying is experienced as chaotic
or as a chaos narrative, co-workers did not respond appropriately and even exacer-
bated the situation. Some co-workers were seen as innocent witnesses, but they did
not intervene to help out. However, when targets framed their experience as a
transformative journey where they gained wisdom, co-workers were seen as inter-
active supporters or silent sympathizers (Tye-Williams & Krone, 2015). D’Cruz and
Noronha (2011) found bystanders who are friends with targets are motivated to
protect targets and help them resolve the situation, yet their behaviour can change
depending on managerial and organizational reactions to the bullying. Karatuna
(2015) found target coping could be more effective when targets had bystander
support, and MacIntosh (2006) found bystander witnesses to the bullying helped
targets by showing their support and sending the message to the bully that the target
was not alone. However, bystanders were only helpful if they did not place them-
selves at risk by coming to the target’s aid.
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 17
unpunished. Hutchinson, Vickers, Wilkes and Jackson (2009) point to the insidious
nature of bullying and how a culture could be corrupted, as bullying can be
accomplished by networks of individuals working together to ensure the behaviour
is tolerated, accepted and even rewarded. Some of this qualitative research engaged
specific sectors, such as Simons and Mawn (2010) who found that “nurses eat their
young” (p. 308), reflecting a culture of hazing almost as part of the profession or
normal working environment. And Miller and Rayner (2012) found police culture
was very ritualistic and emotional with lots of bonding between officers and that
some bullying behaviours are allowed or tolerated if they allow the officer to become
part of the group; exclusion from the group was then the most damaging behaviour
within this context and culture. This demonstrated the culture of the organization can
influence what behaviours are seen as permissible and which are considered harmful
(Miller & Rayner, 2012). Yaman (2010) interviewed academic staff in Turkey
specifically about organizational culture in mobbing situations looking for meta-
phors used by targets. They found their participants saw their universities as “neg-
ative objects or entities and their administrators as harmful living things” (p. 572).
Keashly (2001) argued how the organization responds can determine how an abused
person characterizes their experience; they can work around the problem, promise
action but with no real outcome or take direct action against the bully. Finally,
MacIntosh (2006) found her participants discussed bullying being less common in
organizations with a culture of respect.
during these times (D’Cruz, Noronha, & Beale, 2014). In their study with nurses,
Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson and Wilkes (2005) found organizations going through
change can create situations where workplace bullying is more common; change that
is meant to improve the organization can actually be undone by the bullying that the
change causes. Managers might be more likely to participate in, tolerate or ignore it
in the context of a change. MacIntosh (2006) even found those who had been bullied
while working for rural or small organizations felt downsizing and restructuring was
an excuse to get rid of targets who complain, but organizations with a positive and
respectful culture made bullying less common.
3 Conclusion
4 Cross-References
References
Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military organisation. International
Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 94–105.
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Härtel, C. E. (2003). Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterpro-
ductive behaviors. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 283–301.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., & De Witte, H. (2008). Organizational, team related and job related risk
factors for bullying, violence and sexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitative study.
International. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 132–146.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the
development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1–16.
Bloch, C. (2012). How do perpetrators experience bullying at the workplace? International Journal
of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5(2), 159–177.
Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London:
Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms in organizational analysis. London:
Heineman Education Books.
22 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing and interpreting
focus group research. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods
(pp. 225–241). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Celep, C., & Konakli, T. (2013). Mobbing experiences of instructors: Causes, results, and solution
suggestions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 193–199.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Cowan, R. L. (2009). “Rocking the boat” and “continuing to fight”: Un/productive episodes and the
problem of workplace bullying. Human Communication, 12, 283–302.
Cowan, R. L. (2011). “Yes, we have an anti-bullying policy, but. . .”: HR professionals’ under-
standings and experiences with workplace bullying policy. Communication Studies,
62, 307–327.
Cowan, R. L. (2012). It’s complicated: Defining workplace bullying from the human resource
professional’s perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 377–403.
Cowan, R. L. (2013). “**it rolls downhill” and other attributions on why adult bullying happens in
organizations from the human resource professional’s perspective. Qualitative Research Reports
in Communication, 14, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2013.835347
Cowan, R. L., & Fox, S. (2015). Being pushed and pulled: A model of U.S. HR professionals’ roles
in workplace bullying situations. Personnel Review, 44, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-
11-2013-0210
Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization. Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010). The exit coping response to workplace bullying: The contribu-
tion of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies. Employee Relations, 32(2), 102–120.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and
bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33(3), 269–288.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2012). Clarifying my world: Identity work in the context of workplace
bullying. The Qualitative Report, 17(8), 1.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013a). Breathers, releases, outlets and pauses: Employee resistance in
the context of depersonalized bullying. The Qualitative Report, 18(36), 1.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013b). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of cyber-
bullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2014). The interface between technology and customer cyberbullying:
Evidence from India. Information and Organization, 24(3), 176–193.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2015). Ambivalence: Employee responses to depersonalized bullying at
work. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(1), 123–145.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2018). Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labour
markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations, 40(1), 139–154.
D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Beale, D. (2014). The workplace bullying-organizational change
interface: Emerging challenges for human resource management. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1434–1459.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. D. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). London:
Sage.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Dhar, R. (2012). Why do they bully? Bullying behavior and its implication on the bullied. Journal
of Workplace Behavioral Health, 27, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2012.666463
Eberle, T. S. (2014). Phenomenology as research method. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative data analysis (pp. 184–202). London: Sage.
Efe, S. Y., & Ayaz, S. (2010). Mobbing against nurses in the workplace in Turkey. International
Nursing Review, 57(3), 328–334.
Ellingson, L. (2008). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 23
Fahie, D. (2014). Doing sensitive research sensitively: Ethical and methodological issues in
researching workplace bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 19–36.
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
32(3), 389–395.
Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as human communication paradigm: The case of public moral
argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1–22.
Flick, U. (2014). The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology
The Journal of The British Sociological Association, 12, 27–49.
Hallberg, L. R., & Strandmark, M. K. (2006). Health consequences of workplace bullying:
Experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 109–119.
Harrington, S., Rayner, C., & Warren, S. (2012). Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource
practitioners’ implementation of anti-bullying policy. Human Resource Management Journal,
22(4), 392–408.
Harrington, S., Warren, S., & Rayner, C. (2015). Human resource management practitioners’
responses to workplace bullying: Cycles of symbolic violence. Organization, 22(3), 368–389.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace
bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382–416.
Holbrook, M. B. (2005). Customer value and autoethnography: Subjective personal introspection
and the meanings of a photograph collection. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 45–61.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2005). “ I’m gonna do what I wanna
do.” Organizational change as a legitimized vehicle for bullies. Health Care Management
Review, 30(4), 331–336.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006). Like wolves in a pack: Predatory
alliances of bullies in nursing. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(3), 235–250.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2009). “The worse you behave, the
more you seem, to be rewarded”: Bullying in nursing as organizational corruption. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21(3), 213–229.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2010). A typology of bullying
behaviours: The experiences of Australian nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(15–16),
2319–2328.
Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the accused
bully's perspective. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 489–501.
Karatuna, I. (2015). Targets’ coping with workplace bullying: A qualitative study. Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 21–37.
Keashly, L. (2001). Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work: The target’s
perspective. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 233–268.
Lee, D. (2000). An analysis of workplace bullying in the UK. Personnel Review, 29(5), 593–610.
Lewis, D. (1999). Workplace bullying–interim findings of a study in further and higher education in
Wales. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 106–119.
Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college lecturers.
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 281–299.
Lewis, S. E. (2006). Recognition of workplace bullying: A qualitative study of women targets in the
public sector. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(2), 119–135.
Lewis, S. E., & Orford, J. (2005). Women’s experiences of workplace bullying: Changes in social
relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 29–47.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184.
Liefooghe, A. P., & Olafsson, R. (1999). “Scientists” and “amateurs”: Mapping the bullying
domain. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 39–49.
24 R. L. Cowan and A. Toth
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 9, p. 438). London: Sage.
Lindloff, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.).
London: Sage.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation
and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4),
471–501.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and. . .: Quitting and other forms of resistance to work-
place bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406–433.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses to workplace bullying
trauma and stigmatization. Organization, 15(1), 97–119.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & McDermott, V. (2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived
powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 76(4), 342–368.
MacIntosh, J. (2006). Tackling work place bullying. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27(6),
665–679.
MacIntosh, J. (2012). Workplace bullying influences women’s engagement in the workforce. Issues
in Mental Health Nursing, 33(11), 762–768.
Miller, H., & Rayner, C. (2012). The form and function of “bullying” behaviors in a strong
occupational culture: Bullying in a UK police service. Group & Organization Management,
37(3), 347–375.
O’Donnell, S. M., & MacIntosh, J. A. (2016). Gender and workplace bullying: men’s experiences of
surviving bullying at work. Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 351–366.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
70, 274–287.
Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and
organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561–1589.
Shallcross, L., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2008a). Workplace mobbing: Expulsion, exclusion, and
transformation. In 22nd ANZAM Conference 2008: Managing in the Pacific century conference
proceedings, Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM), University of
Auckland, Auckland.
Shallcross, L., Sheehan, M., & Ramsay, S. (2008b). Workplace mobbing: Experiences in the public
sector. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), 56–70.
Simons, S. R., & Mawn, B. (2010). Bullying in the workplace—A qualitative study of newly
licensed registered nurses. AAOHN Journal, 58(7), 305–311.
Sobre-Denton, M. S. (2012). Stories from the cage: Autoethnographic sensemaking of workplace
bullying, gender discrimination, and white privilege. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
41(2), 220–250.
Strandmark, M. K., & Hallberg, L. R. M. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences
from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Manage-
ment, 15(3), 332–341.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Sumner, E. M., Scarduzio, J. A., & Daggett, J. R. (2016). Drama at Dunder Mifflin: Workplace
bullying discourse on the Office. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Published online before
print. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681158
Tirscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis.
London: Sage.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, and
communication impact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons and slaves: Exploring
the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly,
20, 148–185.
Tye-Williams, S., & Krone, K. J. (2015). Chaos, reports, and quests: Narrative agency and
co-workers in stories of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 3–27.
Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional. . . 25
Tye-Williams, S., & Krone, K. J. (2017). Identifying and re-imagining the paradox of workplace
bullying advice. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 218–235.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Vickers, M. H. (2007). Autoethnography as sensemaking: A story of bullying. Culture and
Organization, 13(3), 223–237.
Yaman, E. (2010). Perception of faculty members exposed to mobbing about the organizational
culture and climate. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10(1), 567–578.
Zabrodska, K., Ellwood, C., Zaeemdar, S., & Mudrak, J. (2016). Workplace bullying as
sensemaking: An analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile interactions. Culture
and Organization, 22(2), 136–157.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication
and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522.