‘We always torment different people, so by definition, we are no bullies’: The problem of definitions in cyberbullying research

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the power of prevailing definitions within the research field of cyberbullying. We address how these definitions, mostly deriving from developmental psychology, have had a problematic influence on the way researchers, policymakers, practitioners working with interventions, and children and young people themselves approach the challenge of understanding and preventing cyberbullying and its consequences. We analyse how the definition of cyberbullying stemming from developmental psychology is inadequate in addressing the complexities of technologically mediated exclusionary processes in educational- and peer-group settings. The dominant research paradigm has suppressed such complexity by deeming irrelevant the extensive experience with cyberbullying of many children and young people. Thus, we argue that it is necessary for the research field to refine definitional work. Research on cyberbullying needs to draw on a broad spectrum of empirical data and incorporate multiple and diverse theoretical perspectives.

'Waiting with Bated Breath'

“…There currently exists considerable scholarly debate about the definitions of cyberbullying (Alipan et (Kofoed & Staksrud, 2019). One respondent in this study suggested that lateral violence in Indigenous communities on social media was indeed a negative aspect of social media but claimed they were "not sure if this is included as cyber bullying".…”

Inconsistent Definitions of Bullying: A Need to Examine People’s Judgments and Reasoning about Bullying and Cyberbullying

“…For example, there are no clear parameters for frequency (i.e., how often the behavior must be repeated) and duration (i.e., length of time within which the behavior must be repeated), nor any clear criteria regarding how severe the behavior needs to be in order to be considered as bullying on its first occurrence. In addition, the current conceptualization of repetition excludes perpetrators who consistently act aggressively towards different targets (Kofoed & Staksrud, 2019). Other ambiguities arise when applying the definitional principle to cyberbullying.…”

Attending to Difference in Indigenous People's Experiences of Cyberbullying: Toward a Research Agenda

“…Over the last 10 years, a body of research has expressed concerns around "the power of prevailing definitions" of cyberbullying in research (Kofoed & Staksrud, 2019); a concern that popular definitions have a problematic influence on how researchers, policymakers, and young people themselves approach the issue. Definitions, as Canty et al (2016) remind us, "are made not born" (p. 48); they have social, cultural, and academic histories that are often obscured through repeated use.…”

“…(p. 48) Staksrud (2019, p. 1007) heed Canty et al's (2016) warning and document the strange side effects of "definitional overlearning" in cyberbullying research, which can occur through anti-bullying efforts to educate children about bullying by providing them with existing models and definitions of bullying. This has produced "some puzzling side effects" (Kofoed & Staksrud, 2019, p. 1011, they observe, such as when students are surveyed and respond by telling researchers their definition is "wrong" because it doesn't match what they've already learnt elsewhere; or when students explain that they aren't "cyberbullying" because they only did it a single timemeaning it doesn't fit the official criteria. Their work demonstrates the ontological and social power definitions can have beyond academic circles, where children are taught the supposedly "right" definition of what constitutes cyberbullying.…”

“…In these ways, the conventional definition leads to "artificial homogeneity," as Canty et al (2016, p. 53) explain. Kofoed and Staksrud (2019) suggest current conceptualizations of cyberbullying are "inadequate in addressing the complexities of technologically mediated exclusionary processes" (p. 1007). Real situations, they argue, often exceed conventional understandings.…”