Presentation on the draft manuscript 'A systematic literature review of academic cyberbullying- notable research absences in Higher Education contexts' given to the Design Research Activities Workgroup at CPUT

1. A systematic literature
review of academic
cyberbullying- notable
research absences in
Higher Education
contexts
1
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
Presenters
Dr Patricia Harpur
Cape Peninsula University of Cape Town
Faculty of Informatics and Design, Applied Design
Dr Travis Noakes
Cape Peninsula University of Cape Town
Faculty of Informatics and Design, Applied Design
Two articles from the Online
Academic Bullying (OAB) project
Distinguishing an online academic
bullying
proposed a framework for analyzing
online academic bullying as a distinctive,
negative phenomenon.
Cyberbullying Analysis in
Higher Education
The OAB’s third manuscript
explores what research has been
done into academic cyberbullying
to help inform the OAB’s research
program.
‹#›
The value (or otherwise) of social
media to the medical professional:
some personal reflections
Third OAB manuscript

2. Presentation overview
STEPPING INTO THE RESEARCH
1. Online Academic Bullying (OAB) research team
2. Global growth in cyber harassment research
3. Increased research in workplace bullying in Higher Education
4. Minimal research into scientific dissenters’ digital voices
5. The value (or otherwise) of social media to the medical
professional: some personal reflections
6. Distinguishing online academic bullying
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW (SLR)
7. Who do we understand to be marginalized academics?
8. Planning the SLR
9. Selection in the SLR
10. Extraction for the SLR
11. Execution of the SLR
12. SLR’s limitations
EVIDENCE – FINDINGS ON THEMES
13. Defining cyberbullying
14. Personality traits
15. Behavior patterns
16. Dealing with cyberbullying
17. Academic contexts
16. Next steps
REFLECTIONS – POWER CREATES GAPS
18. Where are the whistleblowers and dissidents?
19. Academic free speech on controversial science
20. Future online academic bullying research
NEXT STEPS
22. OAB’s future research priorities
23. Conclusion – transdisciplinarity
24. Appreciation and credits
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
introducing our presentation’s structure
A systematic literature review of academic cyberbullying
2
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›

3. stepping into the research
About the lead author
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
3
Dr Patricia Harpur completed a D.Tech Information
Technology degree, focusing on mobile technology-
enhanced learning. She is an active academic, supervisor
and mentor in higher education contexts. She embraces the
challenges of research methodology and quality in
productivity and effectiveness, applying ‘guide-on-the side’
strategies. She ascribes to a constructivist philosophy,
learning from and sharing alongside others.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patricia-Harpur-2
https://scholar.google.co.za/citations?user=n1-qgFAAAAAJ&hl=en
DR PAT HARPUR
‹#›

4. About the second author
stepping into the research
Dr Travis Noakes’ research has explored visual arts students’ e-
portfolio designs for connected learning and UCT journalism
students’ designs of data infographics.
As part of the ‘Online Academic Bullying’ (OAB) research team,
he explores health experts’ use of digital platforms for promoting
an emergent scientific paradigm and their negotiations of cyber
harassment.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-8983
https://publons.com/researcher/1881059/travis-miles-noakes/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Travis-M-Noakes/144922761
https://scholar.google.co.za/citations?user=-beyzEoAAAAJ&hl=en
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Travis-Noakes-2
https://capepeninsula.academia.edu/TravisNoakes?from_navbar=true
TRAVIS NOAKES, PhD
4
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›

5. stepping into the research
DIVERSE DISCIPLINES
Online Academic Bullying (OAB) research team
5
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
Based in the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT),
Faculty of Informatics and Design, Applied Design
Principal investigators
Adjunct Professor Tim Noakes
Associate Professor Izak van Zyl
Co-investigator, project manager, legal and funding
proposals
Dr Travis Noakes of Informatics
Co-investigator & data analyst
Dr Pat Harpur
Psychologist
Dr Cleo Protogerou (California MERCED/ UCT)
Statistical analyst
Dr Corrie Uys
www.researchgate.net/project/Online-academic-
bullying
1. Preparing a definitive framework for OAB
2. Describing Insulin Resistance (IR) scholars’
successful exercise of digital voice
3. Defining academic cybermobs (contrast
versus academic mobs)
4. Describing the qualities of legitimate, informal,
academic debates online concerning state of
the art IR news, with examples.
Four main scholarly objectives
News via the OAB’s ResearchGate channel

6. stepping into the research
SUPPORTING TNF’S RESEARCH INTO ACADEMIC FREE SPEECH AND DIGITAL VOICES
Online Academic Bullying (OAB) data extraction team
6
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
The Noakes Foundation is the founder sponsor of Younglings’ SMILR lab at
www.linkedin.com/posts/younglingsafrica_empowering-software-development-interns
Infrastructural funder- payments and funding proposals
Jana Retief
Software development support
 Python software code for social media data analysis
queries
 API1 and 2 data dictionary applications
 Run bulk data extraction from queries of Twitter’s
Standard Search API (1 and 2)
 Import data into QDAS (eg Atlas.ti, NVivo))
Software interns
Younglings Africa
Software development interns
Mentor
Senior software developer
Cheryl Mitchell

7. stepping into the research
COMMON DEFINITION
What is harassment?
7
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
What is harassment?
Harassment is typically understood as a willful and malicious
‘course of conduct’ directed at a person that would cause a
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and
that does cause the person to suffer distress.
(Citron, 2014:124)
www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674659902

8. stepping into the research
PERSISTENT HARM ON A MYRIAD OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS
Cyber harassment is a very negative phenomenon
8
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
The cyber label captures the different ways the Internet can
exacerbate the injuries suffered. (Citron, 2014:3)
Cyber harassment consists of repeated ‘online speech’ (digital
media- text, image, video) that is often an anti-social, low-value
contribution to discourse.
It can involve threats of violence, privacy invasions, reputation-
harming lies, calls for strangers to physically harm the victims and
technology attacks.
Cyber harassment is not an isolated incident, but rather features
repeated attacks.

9. stepping into the research
EXPECT ATTACKS FROM ALL SIDES REGARDLESS OF POSITION
Workplace bullying, harassment and mobbing in the Academe
9
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_13-1
Professor Loraleigh Keashly’s (2019:62) review of the
global literature on bullying in academe, particularly
involving faculty, confirmed that research interest
has increased substantially in the past decade, which
on its own is a notable indicator of its importance.
The literature suggests that faculty with marginalized
social identities and lower organizational rank are the
most vulnerable. Examination of the intersectionality of
these identities reveals that not even tenure or high
organizational status can protect some faculty from
being bullied.
Faculty bullying recipients “get it from all sides”. They
are bullied by internal actors such as colleagues,
students and administrators, but also by external actors
such as the state and increasingly the public through
online harassment.

10. stepping into the research
CYBER HARASSMENT FROM HIGHER EDUCATION EMPLOYEES
Is online academic bullying a distinctive threat?
10
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
FORMS OF CYBER HARASSMENT
1. Cyberstalking and hyper-surveillance
2. Deception
3. Trolling and flaming
4. Cyberbullying
5. Pariah profiles (eg on “rationalwiki’)
6. Invasion of privacy - doxxing
7. Revenge porn
8. Encouraging self-harm and suicide
9. Endorsing extremist views and terrorism

11. stepping into the research
CYBER HARASSMENT FROM HIGHER EDUCATION EMPLOYEES
A systematic literature review of academic cyberbullying
11
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
CRediT author statement
Pat Harpur
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
- Original Draft, Visualization
Travis Noakes
Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing
Tim Noakes
Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing
- Review & Editing
This foundational study explores the
themes and descriptors that are prevalent
in the academic cyberbullying research
literature. While a growing body of
research addresses the negative
phenomenon of cyber harassment in
higher education, it can be unclear which
topics are most popular. Likewise, there is
a gap concerning those ideas and
descriptors that are important but
neglected.

12. a systematic literature review
ETHICS AND RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
SLR research method’s phases
12
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
Figure 1
Four-phase systematic literature review
strategy, synthesised from Alrasheedi et al.
(2015), Bandara et al. (2011) and Okoli and
Schabram (2010).

13. 13
13
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
PHASE 1. PLANNING THE SLR
SLR method- planning
1. Assembling of keywords and phrases served
as a choice of search criteria.
2. Screened articles were captured in EndNote.
3. Selected articles were catalogued and
grouped as custom-defined topics, inclusive
of index sortation, attachments, author(s),
year, title, source type and research notes.
ADD ATLAS SCREENGRAB?

14. 14
14
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
PHASE 2. SELECTION
SLR method- selection
1. Phase 1’s literature sources
were appraised for relevance,
limiting the scope of the review
(Fink, 2019).
2. This led to a focused selection
process comprising three further
iterations, determined by
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The inclusion (I1 to I6) and
exclusion (E1 to E6) criteria
listed below were applied to the
211 articles emerging during
Phase 1.
3. The inclusion and exclusion
criteria listed in Table 2 were
defined by search terms.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

15. 15
15
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
EXTRACTION
SLR method- extraction
1. Exclusion criteria resulted in a reduced set of 104 articles.
2. Iteration 3 addressed noted gaps linked mainly to marginalised
academics and led to the addition of 4 articles, increasing the
final number of publications to 108 articles.
3. Thereafter, each article was evaluated, applying the following
four customised quality assurance criteria (QAC) informed by
Inayat et al. (2014) and Kitchenham et al. (2009):
QAC1: Are aims of the article suitably aligned to this study?
QAC2: Does the article focus on issues in online bullying of marginalised
academics in higher education contexts?
QAC3: Is there an easily identified framework or set of criteria?
QAC4: Are the findings of value for the synthesis of a framework?
4. An ordinal scale was applied where Yes = 1, Nominally = 0.5 and
No = 0. Ratings resulted in an aggregated index for each article
with the possibility of minimum and maximum values of 0 and 4
respectively (Alrasheedi, Capretz and Raza, 2015).
5. Table 2 represents an illustrative sample of the finalised
evaluation outcomes. This evaluation process achieved an
overall aggregated index of 82.3%.

16. 16
16
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
EXTRACTION, CONT.
SLR method- execution
During ‘Phase 3 – Extraction’, words and phrases – quotations
from selected articles – were extracted and open-coded in
readiness for the synthesis to be performed (Okoli and Schabram,
2010). This step divided data into manageable pieces to support
understanding and categorisation (Dey, 2003). The extraction
process was iterative and applied to “…systematically capture,
code, and analyse the literature within one single repository…”
(Bandara, Miskon and Fielt, 2011:3). Further iterative
development of a theoretically-based and customised codebook
evolved in parallel (Saldaña, 2012, Friese, 2014).
Axial coding of extracted content comprised a refinement of initial
codes leading to a focused emergence of patterns and
connections between encoded snippets. This process aimed to
establish framework elements (Seidel, 1998). Nodes provided
locations for encoded segments, enabling the labelling and
organisation of text sections.

17. Atlas.ti coding
17
17
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
SCREENGRAB EXAMPLE

18. 18
18
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
EXECUTION
SLR method- execution
Query functionality and the construction of memo
snippets supported pattern searching. Writing of
memos recorded research anecdotes and created
opportunities for reflection, analysis, integration and
interpretation. In addition, memo content supported
interpretive synthesis achieved in ‘Phase 4 –
Execution’. Finally, selective coding (Strauss and
Corbin, 1994) sought to identify core categories,
providing a central hierarchy rather than a peripheral
framework structure.
Figure 2 sets out and summarises the relationships
between encoded article snippets, emergent themes,
and codes
Figure 2 Framework of themes (n=5) and codes (n=33)

19. 19
19
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
EFFORT, SCOPE AND COIs
Limitations and ethical concerns
SLR METHOD
 Much greater effort required than other literature review forms (eg narrative review)
 Searches limited to Google Scholar
 Not focused on databases
 Focused on journal articles versus other formats
BIAS
 Share the Atlas.ti file for reviewers and others to scrutinise
 Encourage critical feedback on our work from other researchers (DRAW)
 Do the corrections suggested by reviewers
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (COI)
 Declare potential conflicts of interest to the editor
1. Tim and Travis Noakes are directors at TNF, which makes our research possible
2. TNF research funding only goes to work by Younglings and data analysts
3. No authors are remunerated from TNF (TNF’s policy is to never pay family
members, thereby avoiding a financial COI)

20. evidence – findings on themes
Common research themes
20
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
DEFINITIONS, TRAITS, BEHAVIOURS, RESPONDING, HIGHER ED
1. Academic cyberbullying defined
2. Personality traits
3. Behaviour patterns
4. Dealing with cyberbullying
5. Academic contexts
Sound definitions of a negative phenomenon
Explaining the psychology of perpetrators
Documenting forms of cyber-harassment
Describing responses to cyberbullies
Situating academic cyberbullies and online
academic bullying

21. evidence - findings on themes
Most popular research theme
21
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
PERSONALITY TRAITS

22. evidence - findings on themes
Second most popular research theme
22
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
BEHAVIOR PATTERNS

23. evidence - findings on themes
Second least popular research theme
23
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
C. DEALING WITH CYBERBULLYING

24. evidence - findings on themes
Least popular research theme
24
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
ACADEMIC CONTEXTS

25. Reflections
25
25
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
conclusions – important gaps and research opportunities
NOTABLE ABSENCES IN AN ACADEMIC CYBERBULLYING RESEARCH
 Definitions
- a myriad of roles in cyber-harassment?
- academic cybermobs?
 Personality traits
? Behaviour patterns
? Dealing with cyberbullying
- Detection and preventative policies?
- Practical support for academic employees targeted
by cyberbullies?
? Academic contexts
- Digital platform affordances for scholars’ voices?
- Successful negotiations of cyber harassment?
- Whistleblowers and dissidents’ experiences
- Impacts on academic free speech
Much research has been done to accurately define cyberbullying and
other forms of cyber-harassment. There is also extensive coverage
for cyberaggression, cyberbullying activities, recipients’ coping
practices, victimization and its impacts. By contrast, the important
topics of freedom of speech, dissenting academics, whistle-blowers
and protective factors have been neglected.
This suggests an opportunity for researchers to grow our
understanding through describing academics’ experiences of online
academic bullying. It is also important that the role of social media
platforms and Higher Education institutions are explored, particularly
in their policy measures and related protective initiatives for
defending recipients from online incivility and other forms of cyber
harassment. Future research in the field should also address whistle-
blowers and dissenting scholars’ experiences of this negative
phenomenon and its role in constraining recipients’ academic free
speech.

26. conclusions – important gaps and research opportunities
Speech is not free in the academic science field
26
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
IT IS LIKELY TO BE ACADEMIC CAREER SUICIDE TO CHALLENGE THESE POWERFUL ORTHODOXIES
1. The Cholesterol Model of Chronic Death and Disease is supported by Evidence Based Medicine.
2. Climate scientists are certain that rising temperatures are largely caused by increased CO2 emissions.
3. The high costs of environmental sustainability must trump all other social considerations.
4. Vaccines are completely safe for all recipients over the long term.
5. COVID-19 is a pandemic with natural origins.
6. Lockdowns, mass vaccinations and health passports are the optimal response to COVID-19 risks.
DISSENTERS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS GO EXTINCT

27. 27
27
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND CHALLENGERS OF BELIEFS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
Who are marginalized academics?
Protected classes
Race
Gender
Disabled
Sexual preference
Unprotected scholars
Whistleblowers
Unorthodox, but well-argued
viewpoints that challenge powerfully
entrenched beliefs
Marginalised demographics Anti-hegemonic positions

28. 28
28
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
a systematic literature review
EXPLORING HARASSMENT ACROSS THE ACADEMIC STAR COMPLEX
Being a shining star won’t save dissidents
THE ACADEMIC STAR-COMPLEX
1. Public intellectuals Independent of a university First tier academic celebrity
2. Scholar University affiliated (established career) Second tier microocelebrity
3. Wannabe starlet University affiliated (early career) Third tier microcelebrity
4. Failed starlet Former scholar, middle management Fourth tier bureaucrat
5. Given up Heavy lecture load, lots of drudge work Fifth tier lecturer
<Large untenured underclass in 3,4 and 5 support 1 and 2>
The HE field produces a limited number of winners, while the majority will be defined as
mediocre. Dashed dreams are the norm for many actors. Success depends on extant
social capital, merit (to a point) and random luck. (Fleming, 2021:124)

29. next steps
REFINE THE OABRAT FRAMEWORK
Primary OAB research contributions
29
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
Test the OABRAT framework in ‘Distinguishing online academic bullying’
1. Does the OABRAT framework work for Insulin Resistance experts
on tiers 2 and 3?
Case studies from the OABRAT questionnaire:
i. Public Intellectual
ii. {Scholar}
iii. Early stage researcher targeted by Dean(s) {Wannabe starlet}
iv. Mature PhD/PostDoc student targeted by Professor(s) {Wannabe starlet}
v. Dietitian/Nutritionist targeted by formal bodies, uni employees and peers
vi. Doctor targeted by formal bodies and peers
2. What successes (and failures) do a few experts describe in using digital voice?
3. How do these experts negotiate cyber harassment on digital platforms?
4. How do experts discuss state-of-the-art science news via microblogging?
5. How were these IR experts targeted by academic cybermobs on Twitter?
OAB research goals
1. Prepare the definitive framework for
OAB
2. Describing Insulin Resistance (IR)
scholars’ successful exercise of digital
voice
3. Defining academic cybermobs
(contrast versus academic mobs)
4. Describing the qualities of legitimate,
informal, academic debates online
concerning state of the art IR news,
with examples.

30. next steps
From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research
30
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH VERSUS OTHER FORMS
In their chapter Cyberhate, communication and transdisciplinarity, Associate Professor Emma Jane and
Dr Nicole Vincent argue about the perils of mono-disciplinarity (2020:183). They describe how
communication studies researchers who have followed a narrow lens in in exploring cyber harassment
have discounted its severity and impacts. By framing aggressive or hostile communications as ‘mere
miscommunication’ such researchers have hindered their own discipline’s development and,
inadvertently, supported cyber-aggressors and cyberhate apologists.
Communication studies is inherently multi-disciplinary/interdisciplinary in nature (Dutton, 2013:8).
Nevertheless, the rigid approaches and orthodoxies associated with with various disciplines have still
tended to produce fragmented and incomplete coverage of online hostility in the literature (Janes,
2015). Jane and Vincent argue that a transdisciplinary approach can produce a holistic description of
cyber harassment as a real-world problem.

31. FIVE DISTINCT FEATURES
31
31
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
Applying transdisciplinary research
Disciplinary Interdisciplinary Multidisciplinary Transdisciplinary
Qualitative Qualitative Quantitative Mixed methods
i. Tackling complex, real-world problems
ii. where the nature of the problem itself may be obscure or in dispute and that therefor
iii. demands that scholars transcend disciplinary paradigms and bridge science with practice
iv. partly by seeking out and integrating diverse views of multiple stakeholders
(including those outside academia)
v. with the aim of devising analyses and interventions which promote human flourishing.

32. acknowledgements
THE NOAKES FOUNDATION and CPUT DHET
Thanks to our funders
32
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
TNF’s Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices theme
https://thenoakesfoundation.org/portfolio-items/online-
academic-bullying
TNF’s Lab for Low Carb Nutrition Research
https://www.researchgate.net/lab/The-Noakes-Foundation-
Lab-for-Low-Carb-Nutrition-Research-Timothy-D-Noakes
DHET URF grant
FID Research Committee publication fund

33. gratitude
Thanks for watching, watch again on Slideshare
33
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
‹#›
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
https://www.slideshare.net/TravisNoakes

34. GRAPHICS CREDITS
34
34
Presentation by Dr Pat Harpur and Dr Travis Noakes 2021/10/22
emoji sticker illustrations
Download the App Follow
Stop, academic bully! Stop, bully! Hey, silly ass! Stop, torturer!