Since 2019, Dr Karen Heath and Travis have been involved in combating a cybercrime that hijacked Dr Michael Mol and Prof Tim Noakes’ identities. Karen and Travis collaborated with both health experts to release educational YouTube videos that sought to warn the public of this scam. In 2021, Karen and Travis worked with Dr Adrie Stander and Dr Alize Pistidda-Scheenstra for a digital forensic investigation into this cybercrime. TNF also launched researchfakeendorsement.com and allied social media presences to raise awareness of an ever-growing advertising scam. Despite their prevalence, these micro-frauds have yet to be prosecuted in South Africa. There are seemingly insurmountable legal, policing, and financial hurdles to holding scammers responsible for their cybercrimes. Beyond the reputation damage and costs to celebrities in fighting the scam, this is an important social issue. The scam’s typical victims are the elderly and others who are particularly vulnerable, and can ill-afford any financial loss to scammers. Combating fake celebrity endorsements can seem a futile pursuit: despite Karen, Travis, Prof Noakes , TNF and Dr Mol’s best efforts, both Noakes and Mol have been brandjacked for social media advertising fraud.

Dr Pat Harpur, Prof Tim Noakes and Travis did an ongoing systematic literature review (SLR) of academic cyberbullying in 2020. Their initial review sought to answer the question: What themes do academic cyberbullying researchers focus on and what descriptors are neglected? 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 have been neglected. The SLR’s synthesized model addressed academic cyberbullying via five theoretically grounded themes, namely: (A) definitions, (B) personality traits, (C) behaviour patterns, (D) responses to cyberbullying and (E) academic contexts. The SLR aggregated the common descriptors found under each theme. The authors’ initial results from the SLR’s themes and descriptors spotlights that much research exists for accurately defining cyberbullying and other forms of cyber-harassment. There is also extensive coverage for cyber aggression, cyberbullying activities, recipients’ coping practices, victimisation and its impacts. By contrast, the important topics of freedom of speech, dissenting academics, whistle-blowers and protective factors have been neglected. Following Dr Pat Harpur's passing in 2025, Travis decided to work with a freelancer to complete this research as a critical literature review in a revised manuscript for submission to a journal by December.

Little educational action research (EAR) has been done in African schools for facilitating students’ engagements with Online Content Creation (OCC) or Connected Learning (CL). Travis is revising a manuscript from his PhD that spotlights how EAR inadvertently grew the participatory divide between an elite school’s arts students and their peers at other schools. This article will alert readers to a novel methodological danger; multi-site EAR research with OCC can increase the participatory divide between a wealthy school and a less well resourced one.

Dr Piers Robinson, Dr David Bell and Travis are working on a research ethics proposal to tackle the following concern: Universities and research institutes are pillars of the academic community and are expected to robustly defend academic freedom. Indeed, the concept of academic freedom is a core founding principle of the modern University rooted in Enlightenment thinking about science, reason and the scientific method. In recent years, however, multiple accounts from within the fields of medical science and biology have emerged regarding the resistance that Western experts have faced whilst querying the scientific soundness of official COVID-19 policies. This resistance is tantamount to censorship. Similar accusations regarding gatekeeping and various forms of bias prior to COVID-19 include complaints about ideological bias and the inadequate separation between academia and governments. Questions arise as to 1) the scope and extent of bias during the COVID-19 event, 2), if significant bias exists, understanding the ways in which academics have been censored, and 3) explaining the sources of these constraints. Going forward, it is essential to draw upon these findings to restore and then maintain the integrity of the academy.