In literature, phenomena as social exclusion and bullying is primarily conceived as a process among peers (Košir & Pivec 2026; Berger & Caravita 2016), to which teachers respond by “ignoring, tolerating, intervening or even supporting“ (Wilde 2020: 88 [transl.]; Migliaccio 2015). Although school context characteristics, e.g. the performance pressure, are included into the assessment of the cause (Puschmann 2020), it is less common that teaching practices of professionals are considered to be immediately influential. Especially the factor of teaching organisation is only discussed marginally as a cause (Wachs & Schubarth 2022): In this regard, particular emphasis is placed on the relevance of facilitating social and cooperative learning for the development of positive relationships (van Ryzin & Roseth 2019).

Our own findings support the latter but also raise more fundamental points with regard to teaching practices: The general concern here is that pupils' irritations and uncertainties in school life do not remain unaddressed. This applies not only to situations related to learning tasks but also to social interactions and other everyday school situations in which pupils may experience disorientation. In such moments, pupils should have access to supportive others who can help them make sense of the situation and work through challenges (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2025; Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024): As part of the empirical material collected in the project “Primary Schools in the Field of Tension between Inclusion and Educational Standards“ (Wagner-Willi & Zahnd 2020), funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), pupils reported unequal and therefore unfair practices in the provision of assistance by teachers, which strongly hinders their own ability to act. Insofar as help in completing tasks became a limited resource, pupils began to observe and evaluate each other critically. In this regard, they became competitors – as illustrated by the following pupils‘ quotes:

Hasan: “… and then, I always see Kristina [pupil], how she just raises her hand and Mr Halbstatter [special needs teacher] comes straight away and tells her the answer. She disturbs the class all the time, in maths, in English and also in science and social studies. […]“

Francesco: “…What is unfair is that when I raise my hand to ask a question because I don't understand something, Ms Schneider [class teacher] still goes to the other children first. And in the end, I could not do anything for the whole lesson because I had a question […].“ (Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024: 74 [transl.]).

This shows how, despite systems implemented for this purpose (such as signs for registering in order to request help), pupils were unable to engage in interactions with teachers – and consequently formed a community against those who received preferential treatment. However, this did not remain confined to the classroom but also had an impact on peer culture due to its conflictual nature – and evolved then from here in circular movements back to the classroom. The punishment systems subsequently implemented by teachers, such as so-called consequence sheets (given to parents), only exacerbated the situation as the pupils copied this approach in their class council meetings:

Matteo: “I think the class council should resolve the dispute, but it is actually causing the dispute. Take the issue with the groups, for example: If Arian [pupil] has a conflict with someone, he tells his classmates and then they all write a note against the person he is arguing with […].“ (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022: 21 [transl.])

On these grounds, this article addresses the methodological question of how the circular processes – similarly observable in two cases, in which pupils become not only victims but also perpetrators, can be made visible.

Addressing the methodological question mentioned above, a combination of qualitative research styles involving different data collection and analysis methods was employed in this study (Wagner-Willi & Zahnd 2020). With the aim of conducting an initial analysis, the Documentary Method rooted in the Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge (Bohnsack 2018) was first used – with its central instrument of group discussions (Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024). The guiding principle here is to allow self-sustaining discourses, with as little intervention as possible from the researchers, so that the pupils can freely reveal their centres of relevance and experience. In order to uncover the underlying collective and habitualised knowledge, the following sequence analysis focuses not only on what is said, but also on how interactions among the pupils are organised (ibid.). Accompanied by analyses of videotaped lessons, this ensured a deep insight into the microcosm of each classroom. Centring more explicitly on the course of pupils’ experiences, a Participatory Research approach was employed in order to explore pupils’ perspectives on learning and social participation in everyday classroom practices (Wöhrer et al. 2017; von Unger 2014). In this respect, pupils were introduced to the research process and the methods through workshops. Afterwards, they collected data independently during their school day using research diaries and smartphones to record picvoices. The latter refers to a method of giving photographs a voice – and thus making subjective impressions tangible. Subsequently, these materials were discussed in weekly reflection meetings with the academic researcher, enabling pupils to articulate and reflect upon their experiences. While teachers’ perspectives were also included, the analytical focus lied on pupils’ perspectives and their narratives of everyday school life (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022). Insofar as they were involved not only in collecting the data but particularly in evaluating it, they became (co-)researchers alongside the academic staff. As part of the participatory lesson development that followed, they also played an active role, for example in addressing processes of social exclusion (ibid.). While the procedure within the framework of the Documentary Method provided access to pupils’ shared orientations in relation to the guiding questions, the longer-term presence in the field on behalf of the Participatory Approach made it possible to follow how processes of social inclusion and exclusion unfolded or changed in everyday classroom life.

Matteo: “[…] Everyone wrote notes against him, even though it wasn't true. But they just wanted to be cool and argue with him too, and it was like bullying.“ Researcher: “You looked at that with Ms Schneider [class teacher] [...]. But today was very exciting because there were no more notes. […] Do you feel that there is less arguing now?“ Matteo: “[…] I think they now understand that writing notes always leads to more arguing.“ (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022: 21 [transl.]) By placing pupils‘ perspectives at the centre of the analysis, the study demonstrates how social exclusion and bullying are experienced and interpreted by pupils in close connection with everyday teaching practices and organisational arrangements. Pupils’ narratives reveal how experiences of irritation, insecurity and unfairness emerge in relation to how such issues are addressed and discussed as well as negotiated within the classroom, including the ways in which support and attention are organised. These experiences can trigger competitive dynamics and conflictual peer relations, giving rise to circular processes in which pupils may simultaneously become victims and perpetrators of exclusion. In this way, the findings complement research by showing how certain teaching orientations can unintentionally contribute to exclusionary processes when pupils’ irritations and uncertainties remain unaddressed. Making these connections visible requires a methodological approach that takes pupils’ perspectives seriously as a source of knowledge. A central contribution of the study therefore lies in its methodological focus on pupils as producers of knowledge. Through reconstructive and participatory research approaches pupils were positioned as active contributors whose perspectives made it possible to trace how teaching orientations are perceived and negotiated in everyday school life. In that sense the widening rang of knowledge-producing actors (CfP) can be seen as an important step in the name of inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Beaton 2018).

Berger, C. & Caravita, S. C. (2016): Why do early adolescents bully? Exploring the influence of prestige norms on social and psychological motives to bully. Journal of Adolescence 46, pp. 45–56. Bohnsack, R. (2018): Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge and Documentary Method. In: D. Kettler & V. Meja (Eds.): The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim. Bath: Anthem, pp. 199–220. Florian, L. & Beaton, M. (2018): Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child. International Journal of Inclusive Education 22, pp. 870–884. Košir, K. & Pivec, T. (2026): Prosocial, aggressive, or both? A multilevel latent profile analysis of peer status and social behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence 36, pp. 1–16. Migliaccio, T. (2015): Teacher Engagement with Bullying: Managing an Identity within a School. Sociological Spectrum 35, pp. 84–108. Papke, K. & Wagner-Willi, M. (2024): Schüler:innen-Perspektiven und konstituierende Rahmung – Implikationen für empirische Zugänge. In: D. Matthes, J.-H. Hinzke, H. Pallesen & D. Wittek (Eds.): Dokumentarische Schüler:innenforschung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 68–85. Puschmann, C. M. (2020): Warum gibt es Mobbing? In: M. Böhmer & G. Steffgen (Eds.): Mobbing an Schulen. Wiesbaden/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 33–56. Van Ryzin, M. J. & Roseth, C. J. (2019): Effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, empathy, and bullying in middle school. Aggressive behavior 45, pp. 643–651. Von Unger, H. (2014): Partizipative Forschung. Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer. Wachs, S. & Schubarth, W. (2022): Schule und Mobbing. In: T. Hascher, T.-S. Idel & W. Helsper (Eds.): Handbuch Schulforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 1399–1416. Wagner-Willi, M. & Zahnd, R. (2020): Primarschulen im Spannungsfeld von Inklusion und Bildungsstandards – Rekonstruktiver Fallvergleich und partizipative Entwicklung inklusiven Unterrichts. https://data.snf.ch/grants/grant/188805 Wilde, N. (2020): Mobbing – ein Gruppenphänomen? In: M. Böhmer & G. Steffgen (Eds.): Mobbing an Schulen. Wiesbaden/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 79–98. Wöhrer, V., Arztmann, D., Wintersteller, T., Harrasser, D. & Schneider, K. (2017): Partizipative Aktionsforschung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Wiesbaden: Springer. Zahnd, R. & Oberholzer, F. (2025): ‘In this sense, we use the term integration and thus implement the UNCRPD’. Theorising exclusionary pressures in Switzerland. In: E. J. Done (Ed.): Theorising exclusionary pressures in education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–79. Zahnd, R. & Oberholzer, F. (2022): Stolpersteine und Wegweiser auf dem Weg zu inklusiven Lernarrangements. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 28, pp. 16–23.