A hermeneutic phenomenological study of students' and school counsellors' “lived experiences” of cyberbullying and bullying

Highlights

• Hermeneutic phenomenology is the methodology used and is original in this study.

• Students do not differentiate between bullying and cyberbullying in their lifeworlds.

• Students' interconnected lifeworlds consist of school, out of school and cyberspace.

• School counsellors expressed a lack of understanding of the nature of cyberbullying.

• Participant bystanders justified their inaction with moral disengagement strategies.

Abstract

Past studies investigating the phenomenon of cyberbullying employed mainly quantitative methods, yielding significant findings in prevalence rates, patterns of behaviours, coping strategies, and causes. However, there is a need for more qualitative studies to provide the rich details in order to develop a clearer and more congruent concept of cyberbullying. A hermeneutic phenomenological design was used in this study to investigate students' and school counsellors' “lived experiences” of cyberbullying in Malaysia and how they managed these experiences. “Lived experiences” refer to the pre-reflective, immediate consciousness of the experiences which are then subsequently reflected upon and interpreted in hermeneutic phenomenology. The sample consisted of 70 secondary students (ages 13–17 years from 6 national and 1 private schools) and 18 school counsellors (ages 29–57 years). Eight focus groups were conducted over a period of 5 months. The findings revealed that students and school counsellors felt that cyberbullying in most cases existed in a bullying context as their lived experiences revolved around school, out of school and cyberspace lifeworlds; and that any bullying actions perpetuated by cyberbullies/bullies and reinforced by bystanders moved seamlessly from one interconnected lifeworld to another. In particular, the students did not seem to make the difference between bullying and cyberbullying: online space meant the start or continuation of the bullying, which had the intention to harm or mock others. All student participants reported being bystanders in cyberbullying experiences usually in Whatsapp groups and some additionally reported being bullies and victims. Moral disengagement strategies were used by students to justify not taking affirmative action to help victims. Thus, this study further extends the conceptualisation of the phenomenon of cyberbullying and contributes to the field, using qualitative methods. Further research, including perspectives of parents and school administrators, is needed.

Introduction

The Internet and social media have provided many benefits to adolescents such as speed of communication, enhanced entertainment value, and information at one's finger tips. However, it has also some undesirable effects - of emerging, global significance is the phenomenon of cyberbullying, considered as a serious form of misbehaviour. Cyberbullying is usually termed as aggression that is deliberately and repeatedly carried out in electronic contexts (e.g. in Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, blogs) against persons who cannot easily defend themselves (Hinduja & Patchin, 2017; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Smith et al., 2008).

However, cyberbullying has been defined in various forms by different scholars (Kowalski et al., 2014; Olweus & Limber, 2018; Tokunaga, 2010). Thus, there is a lack of consensus on the conceptualisation of cyberbullying: as an extension of the traditional conception of bullying or as a deviant behaviour in cyberspace with other cyber behaviours such as cyber harassment, stalking, and flaming considered as part of cyberbullying (Tokunaga, 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Consequently, this has led to different operationalisations of the phenomenon and resulted in inconsistent results, particularly in the range of prevalence rates (Olweus & Limber, 2018; Tokunaga, 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008).

Cyberbullying among adolescents has been mainly investigated using quantitative methods, usually through online or paper-and-pencil school surveys (Kowalski et al., 2014; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). While these studies have yielded significant findings in prevalence rates, patterns of behaviours, coping strategies, and causes, there is a need for more qualitative studies to provide the rich details, e.g. to develop a clearer and more congruent concept of cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2013; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Thus, the present study uses qualitative methodology that is hermeneutic phenomenology, to explore a complex phenomenon that is difficult to investigate, given its insidious nature. Phenomenology is a human science with its own theoretical and philosophical approach that diverges from other sciences. It is the systematic study of lived experience and its internal meanings (Husserl, 1970). Hermeneutics enhances the interpretive element to elucidate assumptions and meanings in the transcribed texts of participants' interviews that participants themselves may have difficulty expressing, hence offering a rich and dense description of the phenomenon under investigation (van Manen, 2017, 1990).

Hermeneutic phenomenology as a research methodology, can uncover the distinctiveness of individuals' experiences in their personal, everyday contexts (Gadamer, 1997; Heidegger, 1962). To date, there is no hermeneutic phenomenological study of cyberbullying, particularly not with Malaysian participants. This study yields findings and conclusions that contribute to the field and extends on the conception of cyberbullying. These results are derived from themes that emerge from the hermeneutic analysis but due to the constraints of time and space, only three: those of Interconnected Lifeworlds, Awareness and Coping Strategies, and Bystander Effect are discussed in this paper.

One problem that besets the extant literature is that the concept of cyberbullying varies, usually beginning with definitions of “traditional” bullying, while the differentiation from other types of “deviant” cyber actions, such as cyber aggression, cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and flaming is often not clearly established (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Thus, there have been dissimilar and comparatively conflicting findings as studies use different definitions and operationalisations of cyberbullying (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013; Olweus & Limber, 2018). Smith et al. (2008, p. 376) define cyberbullying as “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself.” Of similar view is Hinduja and Patchin's (2009, p. 5) definition of cyberbullying as “wilful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” This study adopts Smith et al. (2008)'s definition of cyberbullying as an intentional, repeated act of aggression by an individual or groups using online media and platforms.

There is consensus in the research literature that bullying is a form of aggression in which a student is subjected repeatedly and intentionally to negative actions from one or more students (Li, 2007; Olweus & Limber, 2018; Smith, 2013). Smith and his colleagues suggest that cyberbullying is a subset of traditional bullying with the same criteria of aggression, repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality to do harm except that in cyberbullying, it is carried out using electronic means (Olweus & Limber, 2018; Smith, 2013; Smith et al., 2008). However, there are some other discernible features of cyberbullying that differentiate it from bullying. Scholars have found differences such as technological expertise, status gained (either direct or indirect), possibility of anonymity, complicated bystander roles, relative distance, and the many impediments in escaping from harassment (Berne et al., 2013; Nilan, Burgess, Hobbs, Threadgold, & Alexander, 2015; Smith, 2013). More importantly, cyberbullying in contrast to bullying is continuous and never ends due to the anonymity of perpetrators and the replicability affordance of the Internet, and it has the ability to invade private living spaces of the victims (Livingstone, Stoilova, & Kelly, 2016; Smith, 2013).

Another distinct research direction follows the argument that cyberbullying is a unique phenomenon with its own specific characteristics. Cyberbullying occurring under continual technological and societal changes, as such, can take various forms and emerge in multiple contexts in contrast to bullying. Such studies tended to perceive cyberbullying as a form of cyber aggression, cyber victimisation, cyber revenge, or cyber harassment (Cohen-almagor, 2015; Fenaughty & Harré, 2013; Rey, Quintaba-Orts, Merida-Lopez, & Extremera, 2018; Tokunaga, 2010; Willard, 2007). Willard (2007) proposed a taxonomy of different forms of cyberbullying that included harassment, flaming, deception and trickery, cyber-stalking, sexting, and impersonation. Fenaughty and Harré (2013) argued that cyberbullying was a subset of electronic harassment that occured in online contexts.

Faced with these different conceptions and operationalisations, not all research participants in survey studies might understand and agree on the cyber activities that were used to measure cyberbullying, hence leading to probably unreliable results (Kowalski et al., 2014; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Thus, there is a need for the development of a consensual and clear concept of cyberbullying that would enable scholars to create valid and reliable measures (Olweus & Limber, 2018; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008).

The lack of consensus in the conceptualisation of cyberbullying resulted in a wide array of prevalence estimates, with individual authors citing rates ranging from 3% and over 40% (Olweus & Limber, 2018; Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2015; Smith, 2013). A 2018 Pew Research Centre survey of 743 American adolescents found that 59% personally experienced what the survey's authors understood as cyberbullying and regarded this phenomenon as a major problem for themselves and their peers (Docu, 2018). A 2017 study of cyberbullying among 399 Malaysian young adults between ages 17–36 years found that 44% of the respondents had been bullied online while 35% of them reported that they had bullied someone online and 70% had witnessed cyberbullying on social media platforms (Nair, 2017). The Digi CyberSAFE in Schools study of 14,000 Malaysian students reported that 26% had been bullied online, with students aged 13–15 years bullied most frequently (Digital News Asia, 2012). In comparative studies, the EU Kids Online study compared findings in 2010 and 2014, with a reported slight increase in cyberbullying, from 8% of 9 to 16-year-olds to 12% across seven countries (Livingstone et al., 2016). Prevalence rates thus differ widely among different research studies, most probably as a result of differing tools, definitions and contexts used and under-reporting incidences (Foody, Samara, & Carlbring, 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014; Livingstone, Davidson, & Bryce, 2017). Under-reporting of cyberbullying incidents occurred mainly due to fear of adults especially parents who might take away victims' access to the Internet (Addington, 2013; Tokunaga, 2010).

Previous studies reported that cyberbullying very often happened on social networking platforms, or by text messages, and phone calls (Redmond, Lock, & Smart, 2018; Livingstone et al., 2016). Forms of adolescent cyberbullying usually comprise exclusion (being ignored or excluded from chat groups), personal attacks (called names, picked on, made fun of), trolling and rumour mongering (spreading bad rumours) (Nilan et al., 2015; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). These behaviours are quite similar to relational, psychological, and indirect forms of traditional bullying. In fact, studies had shown a strong correlation between cyberbullying and bullying with significant similarities between cyberbullies and traditional bullies and between cyberbullying victims and traditional victims (Cassidy et al., 2013; Kowalski et al., 2014; Smith, 2013). Online bullying sometimes reveals itself as an unintentional type of bullying: rumours and embarrassing photos rapidly spread even when the initial disseminator of this information does not mean to bully. This is, however, as harmful as intentional bullying as the referenced person nevertheless experiences the negative effects of the embarrassment and rumour-mongering (Huang & Chou, 2013; Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004).

Age and gender differences have been widely researched in cyberbullying studies (Foody et al., 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014). Results indicate that cyberbullying during adolescence may continue into early adulthood (Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Foody et al., 2015; Kowalski, Limber, & McCord, 2018). It seems that while more boys and younger adolescents are the perpetrators in traditional bullying, cyberbullying appears to be perpetrated equally among boys and girls and across the adolescent years Livingstone et al., 2016; Foody et al., 2015).

Estimations diverge as to the percentage of cybervictims who know the cyberbullies, ranging from anywhere between 40% and 80% (Cassidy et al., 2013; Kowalski et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Consequently, while anonymity may be a distinctive feature in some cases of cyberbullying, it should not be ignored that the majority of victims do recognise the persons who are cyberbullying them. Due to its insidious and widespread nature, cyberbullying has been found to have even more severe long term effects in victims than bullying (Foody et al., 2015; Ho, Chen, & Ng, 2017).

Victims report a wide range of strategies to cope with cyberbullying. These include ignoring the incident and confronting the bully but were widely perceived as not helpful or solving the problem (DeSmet et al., 2015; Fenaughty & Harré, 2013). Requesting assistance from family, friends or teachers was only deemed useful if the victims received supportive reactions (Fenaughty & Harré, 2013; Ho et al., 2017). A consistent finding from cyberbullying studies was that cybervictims were more likely to report the victimisation to their parents and friends than to authorities (Addington, 2013). As most of the cyberbullying incidences occurred as a result of their associations with their school lifeworlds, cybervictims tended to seek help from their teachers or school counsellors (Addington, 2013). Other studies revealed strategies that included reporting to social media providers to block bullies ((DeSmet et al., 2015; Livingstone et al., 2017).

Cyberbullies tend to behave aggressively online in ways they would not during face-to-face interactions with potential victims, because the social customs that restrain them are weaker when they cannot be recognised and because they cannot perceive the emotional effect on their victims (Kowalski et al., 2014; Livingstone et al., 2017). The anonymity afforded online allows for disinhibition among bullies as the normal societal norms no longer inhibit their behaviour (Udris, 2014). Suler (2004) argued that ‘associative anonymity’ allowed people to hide or alter their true identity and disconnect their actions online from the offline world. Such invisibility endowed people with the courage to carry out actions that they otherwise would never consider (Suler, 2004).

Cyberbullies tend to use moral disengagement strategies to rationalise their behaviour online (Bauman & Yoon, 2014; Cassidy et al., 2013). Transferring the theory of moral disengagement to the online context suggests that it encourages harmful conduct by decreasing prosocial behaviour and anticipatory self-censure, thus enabling individuals to behave in ways that are contrary to their basic moral values (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Cyberbullies tend to disparage their victims and link their actions to worthy causes in order to justify their misconduct and aggression (Bandura et al., 1996; Bauman & Yoon, 2014; Patterson, 2016).

Increasingly, bystanders are gaining importance in cyberbullying studies as bullies and cyberbullies depend on bystanders to achieve their goals of prominent status, prestige or dominance (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Patterson, Allan, & Cross, 2017; Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). It has been recognised that bystanders can affect the bullying process and outcome either positively or negatively. However, most bystanders are afraid to intervene most probably because they perceive it is not their responsibility (moral disengagement) or they lack the necessary skills and knowledge (Bauman & Yoon, 2014; Latane & Darley, 1968; Patterson, 2016). As such, there have been proposals for school bullying/cyberbullying programmes to encourage positive peer influences and in particular, to foster pro-social bystander actions (Patterson, 2016; Salmivalli et al., 2011).

Some findings found that students were unwilling to approach their teachers for help as they perceived them as unable or too slow to resolve the situation (Simão et al., 2017). Consequently, there have been proposals for teachers and principals to participate in cyberbullying intervention or prevention programme training. These tend to be derived from or associated with traditional bullying programmes as teachers, principals and policy makers have more knowledge of bullying in schools and evidence has been derived from years of research (DeSmet et al., 2015).

Nordahl, Beran, and Dittrick (2013) suggested that school counsellors were uniquely placed to offer both leadership and direct student support and these provided prospects to steer the inclusive strategies needed to address cyberbullying. In many countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom and Malaysia, school counsellors are professionally trained in counselling and are not part of the teaching staff. In Malaysia, school counsellors may be former teachers who have additional degrees or diplomas in counselling of adolescents. Yet, there is a paucity of research of school counsellors and their responses to cyberbullying. Studies were conducted on cyberbullying with implications for school counsellors such as more counsellor education programmes informed by research findings, and development of school policies and procedures that encourage and adopt a multi-disciplinary approach involving students, teachers, parents and school administrators (Bhat, 2008; Nordahl et al., 2013). To date, there appears to be no study of secondary school counsellors' responses and perceptions of cyberbullying in schools.

This qualitative study aims to discover the “lived experiences” of 70 students (ages 13–17 years from 6 national and 1 private schools) and 18 professionally trained school counsellors (ages 27–57 years) with cyberbullying in Malaysia. In investigating this phenomenon, the main question in this study is ‘What is ‘cyberbullying’ to students and school counsellors?’ As this question comprises some embedded and corresponding phenomena, which necessitated further investigation, the following sub-questions were explored:

RQ1

What are the experiences of cyberbullying like?

RQ2

How do you cope or manage when you encounter instances of cyberbullying?

RQ3

What roles do participants take in cyberbullying events?

There is a paucity of research studies on cyberbullying in Malaysia especially among primary and secondary school students. The limited studies have focused mostly on prevalence rates and coping strategies of young adults (Abu Bakar, 2015; Balakrishnan, 2018; Yusuf et al., 2018). A study of the lived experiences of the participants in Malaysia would provide new understanding on how secondary school students and school counsellors experience cyberbullying and whether there are implications of this phenomenon in other contexts. Additionally, there appears to be no hermeneutic phenomenological research in cyberbullying to date and this study would be able to provide a rich, detailed description and interpretation of the phenomenon under study. The findings thus would produce new understandings and insights that may prove useful to extend the existing conceptualisation of cyberbullying and its implications for future research and policymaking.