Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization and bullying

The experiences of peer-victimization and bullying are often treated empirically as though they are conceptually indistinct. Both involve repeated aggression,but definitions of bullying additionally emphasize the importance of aggressor intent and imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim (Olweus, 1978; Whitney & Smith, 1993). The present study aimed to examine the extent to which peer-victimization and bullying are empirically similar. The sample comprised 1,429 pupils (50.2% male) aged between 8 and 13 years attending mainstream Scottish schools. Self-report questionnaire assessing peer-victimization and bullying, copingstrategy use (WCCL: Hunter, 2000), situational appraisal and depressive symptomatology (Birleson, 1981). Almost one-third (30.7%) of pupils reported experiencing peer-victimization, and of these 38.1% (11.7% of whole sample) were categorized as victims of bullying. Victims of bullying perceived higher levels of threat and lower levels of perceived control. They also reported using more Wishful Thinking and Social Support coping strategies, but did not differ on Problem Focused coping. Bullied pupils also reported higher levels of depressive symptomatology. Peer-victimization and bullying appear to be qualitatively different experiences for children and adolescents, with bullying being the more serious phenomenon

Human Performance Assessments in Cadet Populations

This study assessed potential physiological differences between the Ranger Challenge (RC) Competition team and junior year cadets in an Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program. The method included: RC (m = 11, f = 2) and junior year cadets (m = 7, f = 3) were assessed in the following areas: 1) quickness and agility (5-10-5 shuttle run), 2) total-body power (standing broad jump), and 3) grip strength (hand grip dynamometry) assessed. The 5-10-5 shuttle run was performed twice (opening once to the left and once to the right). The standing broad jump required that cadets stand with their toes behind a line, perform a maximum of three preparatory movements, triple extend their knees, hips, and ankles while using their upper body to propel them as far forward as possible. After the jump the distanced reached was measured from the line to the heel of the nearest foot. Hand grip dynamometry was performed once on each hand. The cadet held the dynamometer out to his or her side and squeezed it as they lowered it to their hip. The results were that there were no significant differences between groups for the 5-10-5 shuttle run (p = 0.91), standing broad jump (p = 0.49), or grip strength (p = 0.31). RC did not outperform

What can we learn from antique ornithology?

Ornithology has a venerable history. Worldwide, birds are both culturally important and one of the most salient reminders of the natural world, and beyond their regular appearances in folklore, literature and art they were among the first subjects of natural history from the classical world to the Renaissance. The study of birds remained a fixture of inquiry through the scientific revolution: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific journal still published, included ornithological method papers in its very first volume (Boyle 1666), and as scientific practice developed ornithological research kept pace. A growing interest in the diversity and systematics of birds ultimately led to the formation of dedicated ornithological societies and journals in the second half of the nineteenth century. First were the Society of German Ornithologists (Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft) in 1850 and the British Ornithologists’ Union in 1858; their respective journals ‘Journal für Ornithologie’ (now ‘Journal of Ornithology’) and ‘Ibis’ followed in 1853 and 1859. In America, the American Ornithologists’ Union was founded in 1883 with its journal ‘Auk’ beginning the same year, followed by the Wilson Ornithological Society (1886) and Cooper Ornithological Club (1893) and their journals shortly thereafter. The Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union (now part of BirdLife Australia) was founded in 1901, along with its journal ‘Emu’. Amazingly, all these publications are still extant, and digital versions of much of their content are now available back to their first issues. In common with other branches of science, ornithological research has exploded in recent decades, and with this plethora of new work, it is tempting to disregard the older corpus of knowledge, under the assumption that it has either been superseded or is too far removed from modern practice to be useful. However, with over 10 000 extant bird species worldwide and the avifauna of many regions still rarely studied, we would encourage the ornithological community to not overlook earlier literature. In this note, we illustrate the potential interest and value of older studies using three diverse articles published in a single journal issue 100 years ago: volume nineteen of Emu

Catalytic Acceptorless Dehydrogenation of Amines with Ru(P\u3csup\u3eR\u3c/sup\u3e2N\u3csup\u3eR′\u3c/sup\u3e2) and Ru(dppp) Complexes

[Ru(Cp)(PPh2NBn2)(MeCN)]PF6 (1; PPh2NBn2 = 1,5-benzyl-3,7-phenyl-1,5-diaza-3,7-diphosphacyclooctane) and [Ru(Cp)(dppp)(MeCN)]PF6 (2; dppp = 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane) are both active toward the acceptorless dehydrogenation of benzylamine (BnNH2) and N-heterocycles. The two catalysts have similar activities but different selectivities for dehydrogenation products. Independent synthesis of a [Ru(Cp)(PPh2NBn2)(NH2Bn)]PF6 adduct (3) reveals the presence of a hydrogen bond between the bound amine and the pendent base of the PPh2NBn2 ligand. Preliminary mechanistic studies reveal that the benzylamine adduct is not an on-cycle catalyst intermediate

Impact and collaboration in environmental research moving universities from evidence producers to co-producers – summary paper

This document is a summary of a discussion document that explores the relationship between environmental research and policy, the role of universities, and the emergence of co-production. It provides a set of provocative discussion questions to help funders, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers engage with these topics. The report was launched in June 2024, a recording of the launch webinar can be found on the Agile website

Impact and collaboration in environmental research: moving universities from evidence producers to co-producers

This discussion paper explores the relationship between environmental research and its use in environmental policy. While there is a common perception of a gap between research and policy, efforts to bridge it often fall short of integrating knowledge effectively with environmental action. Common fixes, like improving dissemination and scientific literacy within government, overlook the politics and complexities of knowledge production and usage. We explore universities’ pivotal position in the science-policy ecosystem, particularly given their role in knowledge brokerage practices and the influence of ‘impact’ as a governance tool. Participatory approaches, such as co-production, offer promise for closing the ‘usability gap’ for research by facilitating collaborative generation of actionable knowledge. Co-production features high user participation, contributing to higher-quality research, fostering trust, and giving voice to knowledge users and interested parties. Understood and deployed in various ways, co-production also faces challenges such as the high potential costs or replication of wider knowledge production risks. A reflective approach to co-production, considering positionality and recognising political influences, can mitigate these risks and optimise its benefits. We highlight the potential of co-production in environmental research and policy and offers valuable insights and recommendations for its effective implementation. We hope that the material in this discussion paper provides a constructive basis for precipitating reflections and discussions amongst researchers and other people involved in the production and use of environmental research about their role in engaging with policy

Adolescent bullying and sleep difficulties

This study evaluated whether adolescents who report having been bullied, being bullies, or report both being a bully and being bullied experience more sleep difficulties than children uninvolved in bullying. The study drew upon cognitive theories of insomnia, investigating whether the extent to which young people report worrying about bullying can moderate associations between victimization and sleep difficulties. Participants were 5420 adolescents who completed a self-report questionnaire. Pure Victims (OR = 1.72: 95% CI [1.07 – 2.75]), Pure Bullies (OR = 1.80: 95% CI [1.16 – 2.81]), and Bully-Victims (OR = 2.90: 95% CI [1.17 – 4.92]) were all more likely to experience sleep difficulties when compared to uninvolved young people. The extent to which young people reported worrying about being bullied did not moderate the links between victimization and sleep difficulties. In this way, bullying is clearly related to sleep difficulties among adolescents but the conceptual reach of the cognitive model of insomnia in this domain is questioned

The role of publics and deliberation at the environmental science-policy interface

This discussion paper reviews the role of publics and deliberation at the environmental science-policy interface. We highlight two dominant ways to think of public(s), as either a homogenous whole, or as multiple and emerging around particular issues. The way we conceptualise public(s) will shape how and why public participation might be used. Environmental researchers and decision makers may choose to engage in public participation to steer environmental research towards more “democratic” outcomes, or to co-create new knowledge alongside publics. Deliberative democracy is one way of engaging the public through informed dialogue, reflection, and consideration of the conflicting ideas and values which are embedded in environmental challenges. We describe the foundations of deliberative democracy and some core complexities and considerations of deliberation, while assessing the role of different sources of knowledge in these processes. Public deliberation is no panacea for complex environmental challenges. It comes with risks including perpetuating a depoliticised image of global challenges as “solvable” through expert knowledge, rational conversation, and technological solutions. We attempt to articulate a path through these challenges towards a public participation which is reflexive and contextualised, and can contribute to building effective and just environmental knowledge and policy. We hope that the material in this discussion paper provides a constructive basis for precipitating reflections and discussions amongst researchers and other people involved in the production and use environmental research about their role in engaging with publics

The role of publics and deliberation at the environmental science-policy interface – summary paper

This document is a summary of a discussion paper that explores the relationship between environmental knowledge, policy and the public. It provides a set of provocative discussion questions to help funders, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers engage with these topics. The report was launched in June 2024, and the full discussion paper, as well as a recording of the launch webinar, can be found on the Agile website