Negative Reporting Experiences

The degree to which this group of Irish adolescents were so deeply entrenched against reporting cyberbullying to teachers is unsurprising. It confirms findings obtained by Slonje and Smith (2008) in the UK who found that teachers were rarely informed, as well as those obtained by O’Neill and Dinh (2013), which found that only 6% of Irish students (aged 9-16) reported their cyberbullying experience to a teacher. De Lara (2012) provides similar findings from her sample of US adolescents. However, whilst these studies have reported frequency of non-reporting, none of them has provided insight into the reasons underpinning that resistance. However, this study extends our understanding of this issue by showing that reporting to teacher resistance derives from adolescents’ personal or observed experiences, rather than social influence as is frequently cited. It provides detailed insights into influencing factors, such as the sense of betrayal that adolescents recounted when they had reported their experiences to teachers, but were not taken seriously, or were blamed for the incident. Worryingly, several students reported incidents where school staff failed to act on reported cyberbullying, such as a female student who was blocked from progressing her concerns to the Principal. Whether in the vast scale of cyberbullying experiences, this remains an isolated case or is more common is not quite clear, but the findings obtained in this study certainly point to a concern on behalf of adolescents regarding the perceived ability of school-staff to respond both proportionately and effectively to adolescent experiences of cyberbullying. Such experiences may perpetuate a perception amongst female adolescents in particular that teachers resist helping victims of cyberbullying and further compound an already difficult experience. Just as De Lara (2008) found with her (US) sample of students, these Irish adolescents reported that the bullying continued unabated, and as a consequence they then withdrew from confiding in teachers.

Moreover, the study findings have important implications in relation to an apparent disconnect that would seem to exist in many school environments between the written anti-bullying policy and adolescent experience of its implementation. It is important to note, however, that these findings are based on the perception of the adolescents in this study and may not reflect that experience of teachers. Therefore, further work is required that focuses on the experience and perception of the teaching community in relation to this issue. This would not only provide a balanced perspective on the issue, but also would also enable greater understanding and provide a more objective picture regarding this issue. However, at present, and based on the experiences of these adolescents, there does not appear to be any systematic or transparent process that is consistently followed by schools when cyberbullying is reported. In many cases, neither the student nor their parent has any knowledge of how the complaint is being processed and to obtain that knowledge required that they proactively insisted on its provision. Clearly, this is neither a satisfactory nor effective way of dealing with cyberbullying complaints for students, parents or teachers. Such insights have practical implications for principals, teachers, boards of management and policy makers regarding the need to systemise responses to reported cyberbullying incidents and the needs for greater clarity in communicating at each stage of that response. Without that level of transparency, neither students nor their parents are likely to have trust in schools to successfully address bullying incidents, and non-reporting will continue. Researchers such as Moore and Minton (2011) have speculated that the explanation for adolescent non-reporting in Ireland may in part derive from adolescent’s perception of themselves as being more capable than teachers of dealing with their own negative online experiences or potentially a lack of confidence in the school’s abilities to deal with bullying (p.40). The findings obtained in this study confirm that speculation, but additionally provide empirical evidence that the lack of confidence derives directly from negative experiences (or observed experiences) of informing teachers, and furthermore that those negative experiences are more widespread than was previously thought. As past experience predicts future behaviour, adolescent resistance to confide in teachers is therefore unsurprising.

It is difficult to understand why the teachers in whom these Irish adolescents had confided their cyberbullying experiences were perceived to have been unhelpful

without eliciting the perspective of those teachers. This study sought to explore the experiences of a specific group of intellectual gifted adolescents and needs to be seen as such. However, it is possible that it relates to adolescents’ and adults’ differing interpretation of what constitutes cyberbullying – an issue that has been frequently cited by some researchers (such as De Lara, 2012; Smith, Cowie, Olaffson, and Liefooge, 2002). In addition, as teachers are as prone to bias as any other professional, it is also conceivable that the reputation of the student might influence the teacher’s evaluation of whether cyberbullying did take place and more importantly who provoked it. For example, in their (2012) study, Holfeld and Grabe reference the observation made by a teacher who indicated that a student’s reputation can influence teachers’ perceptions of the honesty of their report and that, if a student has a poor reputation at school, teachers may be less likely to believe them when they come forward with critical information. However, as the students who comprised the focus group samples in this study are high achievers, it is difficult to see how this explanation could reasonably apply to so many of them. It should be pointed out that whilst the experiences and perceptions of students are not disputed, it is important to remember that context may also play a part in influencing perceptions of teacher passivity in the immediate aftermath of a cyberbullying complaint. For example, from a teacher’s perspective it may be difficult to immediately ascertain the veracity of a complaint of cyberbullying and the teacher may perceive the need for further investigation before taking action. In part, this is due to an awareness that online disputes and bullying behaviour may have originated in the school environment or elsewhere offline with the victim responding in kind, which at times can make it difficult to discern between bully and victim, or indeed identification of the original perpetrator. As a result, recognition that the online “bully” can, in fact, become a “bully-victim” is an important factor that teachers often bear in mind and one which is supported by previous findings in the literature regarding the bully-victim dynamic (for example, O’Moore, 2013, O’Moore and Minton, 2011, O’Moore, et al., 1997, Olweus, 1997; 1993). Nonetheless, it points to the urgent need for the implementation of a more effective, systematic and transparent process in schools, one which will enable teachers to examine allegations of cyberbullying speedily and thoroughly in a way which allows them to gain the trust of students. It is hoped that the new anti-bullying policy (DES, 2013) instituted for all Irish schools (primary and post-primary) will go some way to addressing these concerns given that the guidelines

now incorporate responses to cyberbullying behaviour. However, based on the reports of the adolescents involved in this study, which were obtained in 2014, it is clear that a school-wide systematic response process has not yet been satisfactorily implemented on a national level.

In summary, insights gained from this research indicate that Irish adolescents frame their reporting decisions in terms of the likelihood of negative consequences. Many do not report cyberbullying experiences due to the fact that parents are not viewed as being au-fait with social-media technology and would over-react when told about cyberbullying, thereby exacerbating the problem. Student trust in teachers to effectively address cyberbullying was particularly low due to negative personal or observed experiences of consequences for those who had reported their experiences. There appears to be no systematic process for dealing with cyberbullying that is consistently followed by all teachers and communicated to students and parents. This creates a random and untrustworthy outcome for students who do report cyberbullying, one that can only have negative repercussions for teacher-student relationships in the classroom.