Using the socio-ecological framework for analysis

A critique of some researchers who engage with grounded theory methods is they fail to grasp the full potential of grounded theory, instead simply developing categories and omitting the next stage of analysis: developing theory (Charmaz, 2014a; Urquhart, 2013). As theory development was a key rationale for choosing to draw on CGT, it

93 was important to engage with this final stage. Urquhart (2013, p. 136) advocates using the literature to deepen analysis of the categories and advises using ‘grand’ theories to form “an interesting lens” through which analysis can be enhanced. As a range of factors influence the perpetration and victimisation of individuals through cyberbullying, including factors such as individual resilience (Hinduja & Patchin, 2017), friendship groupings (Felmlee & Faris, 2016), class norms (Elledge et al., 2013; Williford et al., 2013), school climate and ethos (Betts et al., 2017; Nickerson et al., 2014) and parenting style (Brighi et al., 2012; Fanti et al., 2012; Hinduja &

Patchin, 2013), it was necessary to consider a theoretical framework for analysis which would enable a holistic approach to be taken, to draw together these different facets of an individual’s life. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994, 2005) socio-ecological framework was deemed appropriate to this task.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994, 2005) socio-ecological framework (see Figure 2.1, page 49) provides a holistic way to analyse contexts by looking at systems which impact on an individual at different levels of proximity to the individual. The socio- ecological framework has been explained in section 2.5, however, I will briefly recap the main points here.

The micro-systems are those systems which contain the individual, such as home and school, and these are the most proximal systems. The meso-systems are where micro- systems over-lap, for instance a parent visiting the school with their child. Exo- systems are areas of influence which do not directly contain the individual, but still have influence on their lives, for instance, their parent’s workplace influences the time a parent returns home, which impacts the time spent with the child. Macro-systems

94 are wider influences which often fade into the background, unnoticed; Bronfenbrenner describes these as the ‘blueprint’ for the society in which the child resides (1977, p. 515), so, a macro-system can be the way in which a school is organised – with a timetable, tutor groups, discrete subjects following a curriculum – but also systems like local and central government, laws, policing, and so on. Finally, the chrono- system is the passage of time and how factors within the systems will change, hence altering the impact on the individual, for instance, the birth of a sibling, changing schools, new curricula, etc. These systems are typically represented via concentric circles, progressively becoming more distant from the individual who occupies the micro-systems.

Theory-building involves moving from detail and specifics to greater degrees of abstraction (Charmaz, 2014a). This is a complex process which involves examining the findings, the literature, theory (Urquhart, 2013), analysing the inter-relationships, arranging and re-arranging data and applying “theoretical playfulness” which allows different analysis and interpretations of the data to emerge (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 245). The key points from the discussion around each of the categories were extracted for further analysis of the inter-relationships and how these applied to the socio-

ecological framework. Firstly, the data were examined to identify whether it was relevant to the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro- or chrono-systems (see Appendix B). In some cases, data could be relevant to two systems, for instance, a micro-system which is interacting with another micro-system, becomes a meso-system, therefore, some data were labelled as both. This was initially a sorting exercise. Then, the data were analysed for inter-relationships within and across the different systems. For instance,

95 analysis of inter-relationships identified three ways young people can respond to victimisation, whereas previously I had identified two, and only two have been suggested in the literature; the two initial forms were passive and active strategies, to this I have added protection. Also, some inter-relationships crossed systems,

particularly between micro- and meso-systems. For instance, the micro-system peer context in school sets out rules and norms with which the peer group is expected to abide; however, it relates to a meso-system where home and school micro-systems are bridged by the online world; while the rules are set in the peer context in school

micro-system, young people are victimised to ensure compliance with the rules through the meso-system of home/school, bridged by online mechanisms (see sub- section 6.5.1). These inter-relationships were identified and analysed through mind- mapping processes, which successively identified and developed the inter-

relationships and how they fitted into the socio-ecological framework. This resulted in a detailed model (see Figure 6.1, page 216). This model is complex and may not be suitable for discussions within school; however, it has been discussed with my contact at Trinity Catholic Academy who is keen to evaluate it.

I believed a further level of abstraction was required to make the model more user- friendly for schools and could have the details of each section behind the model. This resulted in Figure 6.2 (page 226). To achieve this level of abstraction, I took apart the first model and further analysed the relationships. Here I began with the victim as the central point, with the choices they can make about how to respond to their

victimisation. The factors which will influence their decision, based in their micro- systems are arranged around the victim: friendships in school; peer context in school;

96 school as an organisation; and parents/home environment. The three forms of

cyberbullying, which have been identified through this study, are arranged in the meso-system layer where the home and school micro-systems interact online. The relationship with the peer context and friendships is indicated. Finally, the wider online community and its impact on the other systems encompass the others. The technical language associated with the socio-ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994, 2005) has been removed in this model, however, the influence on the model is still visible to those who are aware of the framework. This abstracted model is based on the detail from the first, but is more helpful to stimulate conversations with school staff and students.