Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 April 2022
Eight conceptual challenges in developing the 'online academic bullying' framework
Written for scholars interested in understanding online harassment from academic cyberbullies, plus the development of the online academic bullying routine activity theory (OABRAT) framework
In developing our 'Distinguishing online academic bullying' article, Prof Tim Noakes and I trimmed the manuscript several times. Reworking some of these cuts in this post may offer value through addressing the methodological challenges we encountered in proposing our article's OABRAT framework. Seven conceptual challenges were overcome its development, while an eighth was encountered post-publication:
1 NEW FORMS OF POWER IMBALANCE
Conventional definitions of cyber-bullying suggest a power imbalance in which one aggressor is more powerful than his or her victim (Englander, Donnerstein, Kowalski, Lin, & Parti, 2017). By contrast, an established academic may be easily be targeted by individuals of varied statuses; who can mount frequent attacks as part of cybermobs. OAB differs from the conventional definition of cyberbullying in that there need not be a one-to-one power-imbalance in favour of the bully. It can include varied power relationships between a victim and his or her attackers: a standard power-imbalance may exist in the victim being on a lower rung of an academic cultural hierarchy within a particular field than the bullies (e.g. Cardiology has greater prestige than Sports Medicine in the medical field). However, a senior scholar may still be the subject of collegial mobbing (Davenport, Elliot and Schwartz, 1999). For example, the Emeritus Professor was attacked online by junior academics and non-scholars, from within his field and from other disciplines (see Figure 1 for his university).
 |
| Figure 1. Faculties and departments in which employees persistently criticised the Emeritus Professor on social media (Travis Noakes, 2020) |
Attacking a scientific dissident as a pre-defined target seemed to provide attackers with an instant form of credibility- they did not have to prove their symbolic credentials to gain visibility. Few of the professor's blogging critics were Health Science scholars. Despite making no scholarly contribution to the debate, some academic cyberbullies seemed to achieve visibility as opinion "leaders" online. This shows how micro-celebrity hijacking can apply for Higher Education (HE) employees. Academic bloggers criticise public intellectuals for "wrongthink" thereby gaining attentional capital- blogged critiques by "independent" critical thinkers can convert into appearances on broadcast media.
Power imbalances may also result from other differences in a victim’s status versus his or her attackers. These can span inequalities in capital (Bourdieu, 1986), notably social and cultural capital- a scholar who defends an unorthodox position is at a disadvantage in terms of her social capital. She will struggle to draw support against unfair criticism by organic groups of academic cyberbullies.
Another dimension of power imbalance may lie in technical cultural capital- an OAB recipient who has less knowledge of the digital platform(s) on which she is being attacked may be at a serious disadvantage. For example, cyberbullies can use advantages in their ‘digital dimensions’ (Paino & Renzulli, 2013) of cultural capital for gaining greater visibility. They can leverage a myriad of online presences for amplifying their attacks, whilst leveraging multiple chains of digital publication that are difficult for a victim to reply to.
This suggests another imbalance whereby OAB recipients will struggle to defend themselves against asymmetrical cyber-critiques. It may be exhausting to respond to frequent criticisms, across a myriad of digital platforms and conflicting timezones.
Another dimension of power imbalance may lie in technical cultural capital- an OAB recipient who has less knowledge of the digital platform(s) on which she is being attacked may be at a serious disadvantage. For example, cyberbullies can use advantages in their ‘digital dimensions’ (Paino & Renzulli, 2013) of cultural capital for gaining greater visibility. They can leverage a myriad of online presences for amplifying their attacks, whilst leveraging multiple chains of digital publication that are difficult for a victim to reply to.
This suggests another imbalance whereby OAB recipients will struggle to defend themselves against asymmetrical cyber-critiques. It may be exhausting to respond to frequent criticisms, across a myriad of digital platforms and conflicting timezones.
2 BEYOND TROLLS: ACADEMIC CYBERBULLIES AS DECEIVERS, FLAMERS, ETC.
Definitions of cyberbullying are in themselves broad, since
they may also cover electronic bullying and internet harassment (Berne et al., 2013) . Likewise, classifications for academic cyberbullies’ roles and behaviours must be wide-ranging to address how bullies can readily draw on many repertoires for anti-social communication. A highly agentive cyberbully could draw on practices that meet several characteristics- the mocking "jokes" of a malevolent troll, the swearing attacks of a 'flamer' and a 'deceiver''s misrepresentations in their self-presentation (e.g. a self-proclaimed "philosophe(r)"/"scholar" without a PhD). We chose not make sharp distinctions between an academic bully’s and
other online deviants' roles and behaviours, since this could actually include areas that strongly overlap. At the same time, we were mindful that defining OAB as a particular form of harassment by HE employees was important to ensure OAB does not become a catchall. There is a danger that definitions of harassment that are generalised can be misused in bad faith to apply to mere criticisms or mildly unpleasant language (Jeong, 2018).
3 SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION VERSUS BIO-MEDICAL HERESY "JUSTIFIES" HARASSMENT
When a challenger to orthodoxy begins to attract attention from patients, the general public and the press, then those in power will take active steps to protect the reigning paradigms (Martin, 2004). Adherents to the dominant ideology will view such individuals' questioning of the central values of their CMCDD orthodoxy as performing heresy. Heresy is created by the response of the orthodoxy when its views' delineate attacks as beyond the pale (Wolpe, 1994). Defenders of CMCDD might justify their harassment in believing that only high carbohydrate/low fat diets are “healthy”. Followers of this belief have argued that pursuing any other ideas or approaches constitute a "threat to public health". Following this rationale, such critics may argue for censorship of dissidents' "dangerous" work and to limit digital publics' exposure to state-of-the-art IRMCIH science news.
Defenders of the status-quo enjoy visibility as part of dominant networks and can readily spotlight “heretics” for criticism via formal and informal channels, such as social media. Recipients must negotiate rapidly-spreading disinformation, defamation, misrepresentation-of-argument and even character assassination HE employees involved in such adverse actions typically explain their actions as being justified in maintaining 'academic standards'' (Martin, 2020). However, such actions are detrimental in silencing dissenters' and whistleblowers' free speech, thereby stifling scientific debate and potential innovations.
4 FOREGROUNDING THE VICTIM’S PERSPECTIVE
5 ACADEMIC CYBERMOBBING- SEPARATE FROM AN ACADEMIC MOB
The Emeritus Professor's case study was closely linked to a formal mobbing at his former academic institutional employer. In the initial manuscript, we foregrounded this strong overlap: His employer's neglect of rules and policies against harassment by its employees provides a fertile space for harassment (Benatar, 2021). Senior leaders followed a dominating conflict culture (DCC) approach (Desrayaud et al., 2018) in protecting the Faculty of Health Science's (FHS) CMCDD orthodoxy from criticism. Although DCC actively encourages discourse about incompatible goals and ideas, DCC does not acknowledge the validity of opposing views. In a toxic DCC workplace, dissent is ignored and support for dissenters is withheld. Explicit bullying is seen as an acceptable response to intellectual differences and overt mobbing is also condoned. In this respect, attacks on the Emeritus Professor were similar to the bullying of other senior scholars that university leadership clearly tolerated (Benatar, 2017; Coovadia, 2015; Crowe, 2017; Crowe, 2019; McCain, 2020; Plaut, 2020; Soudien, 2015; Steer, 2019; Vernac News, 2019). In 2019, his employer's institution acknowledged that bullying was a major concern amongst staff (Feris, 2019), but has yet to recognise the importance of addressing DCC in its FHS. One positive recent development is that an anti-bullying policy was passed (2021). Albeit, a very late response to its former Ombudsman's recommendation from 2012 (Makamandela-Mguqulwa, 2020).
In university workplaces, bullies can use a justification of “academic freedom” to condone actions that would be unacceptable in other workplaces (Driver, 2018). For example, an academic lecturer (who is neither a scholar nor a scientist) published thirty blog posts that criticised the Emeritus Professor's popularisation of LCHF science. Although by no means an academic peer, this junior lecturer might justify such fervent criticism of a fellow employee at the same university as a necessary part of academic freedom in an institute of higher learning. Nevertheless, such obsessive behaviour from a low-ranking, under-qualified employee seems unlikely to be acceptable at any other place of employment.
In collating the varied forms of harassment from "academic colleagues", it was unsurprising that we initially considered a recipient's OAB as being inseparable from an experience of academic mobbing in the HE context. However, the manuscript's reviewers flagged that it could be separate- especially for targets outside HE. In response, we designed the OABRAT framework to accommodate a separate phenomenon.
Such separation also addressed concerns that the private, departmental ostracisation of ‘academic mobbing’ in HE (Seguin, 2016. Khoo, 2010) is a very different negative phenomenon from the public attacks that academic cyberbullies launch. Unlike the largely concealed backstabbing of an academic mob, academic cyberbullies criticisms are public. OAB recipients can readily spot critics and their networks in digital criticisms, such as group petitions. Like others cybermobbers, public attacks fall within a spectrum that can include: i. drive-by harassment, ii. low-level mobbing, iii. sustained hounding and iv. sustained orchestration (Jeong, 2018). Professor Noakes and I are working on a manuscript that explores this spectrum for defining an ‘academic cybermobbing’'s particular characteristics.
6 GUARDIANS AGAINST VICTIMS OF ACADEMIC BULLYING
In addition to considering academic cyberbullies practices and their recipients experiences, it is also vital to address the role of guardians. RAT supports addressing the activities of both the targets of crime, plus their guardians. In academic cyberbullying, it is important to consider how the online activities of a victim could be placing him or her at added risk. It is also worthwhile considering how the lack of action from guardians of civility, whether they be at the scholar’s academic institution or moderators for social media platforms, has an impact. Prevention would seem better than cure for the negative phenomenon of persistent cyber harassment. In OAB, this emerges when a large quantum of criticism from academic cyberbullies creates an easily searchable footprint.
Policies protecting employees at HE institutes from workplace persecution have largely focused on sexual and racial harassment. The danger exists that other forms of persecution may be neglected as seeming relatively unimportant by comparison (Citron, 2007). For example, aggressive behaviours in the workplace may be considered acceptable by default (Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002). Informal expectations and norms can increase the sense of a lack of accountability online and boost the likelihood of deviant behaviours. Without deterrents or any consequences for academic cyberbullying, bullies may believe that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Worse, hegemonic leadership may actually reward those whose cyberbullying seems to maintain perceptions of consensus. In HE, such rewards are unethical in undermining academic free speech, scientific innovation and motivating academic cyberbullying.
7 ACADEMIC BULLIES MAY TARGET OUTSIDERS FROM ANYWHERE
In conceptualising OAB, we came to argue that the victims of academic cyberbullies need not be HE employees. Feedback from IRMCIH proponents in varied health professions, plus LCHF entrepreneurs, confirmed attacks from cyberbullies in HE. While our literature review produced many examples of dissenting scientists and academic whistleblowers being confronted academic mobs, there is a gap concerning cases for bullying victims outside HE. This is another area that The Noakes Foundation's Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices (AFSDV) project can address for the IRMCIH scientific issue arena.
After Professor Noakes and I submitted the article for publication, we identified another concern to explore under the AFSDV theme:
8 A COMPLEX FORM FOR AN EXTREME CASE
GRAPHIC CREDITS
Stop, academic bully! shushmoji™ graphics courtesy of Create With Cape Town.
Thursday, 25 February 2021
Some background for 'Distinguishing online academic bullying: identifying new forms of harassment in a dissenting Emeritus Professor’s case'
Written for academics and researchers interested in academic cyberbullies, peer victimisation, scientific suppression and intellectual harassment.
Professor Noakes and I then setup the new research theme, Academic free speech and digital voices, under The Noakes Foundation. Under this theme, the OAB research project’s first stage (2018-2021) has focused on proposing a theoretically grounded conceptualisation for a recipient's experiences of OAB. We wrote 'Distinguishing online academic bullying' over a two year period in which the theoretical lens was refined to better address OAB's distinguishing characteristics. Our manuscript underwent four major rewrites and three revisions to accommodate diverse reviewers' plus an editor's constructive criticism.
It would seem unethical to suppress the testing of scientific models and development of academic knowledge that may greatly benefit public health. Nevertheless, this continues to occur in HE regarding the academic free speech of IRMCIH scholars. Although there is growing evidence for their model and the efficacy of its interventions, the rival blood lipid hypothesis and CMCCD model for the causation of heart disease largely remains the only one taught and researched by medical schools. There are few examples of legitimate debates between IRMCIH and CMCDD scholars in HE (Lustig, 2013; Taubes, 2007; 2011; 2017; 2020; Teicholz, 2014). Opportunities for IRMCIH research and teaching in HE are heavily constrained by scientific suppression of CMCDD dissenters (Noakes and Sboros, 2017, 2019).
In HE, scientific suppression can be understood as a normative category of impedance that is unfair, unjust and counter to the standards of academic behaviour (Delborne, 2016). Such impedance is apparent in the treatment of dissenting scholars who challenge the CMCDD model, then become ostracised from the Health Sciences as "heretics". In theory, universities should encourage academic free speech and robust debate on the CMCDD versus IRMCIH models. By contrast, in HE practice, IRMCIH scholars cannot exercise their rights to academic free speech.
Academic freedom is a special right of academics- a right to freedom from prescribed orthodoxy in their teaching, research, and lives as academics (Turk, 2014). This right seeks to avoid corruption from the vested interests of other parties, which ranges from scholarly peers and university board members to corporate donors. This right is foundational in supporting scholars to advance and expand knowledge, for example by accommodating diverse voices (Saloojee, 2013).
Academic free speech is a failed ideal where IRMCIH scholars do not enjoy opportunities to research and teach this emergent paradigm. Instead, dissenting IRMCHI scientists must negotiate scientific suppression by a multitude of entrenched networks and embedded academics. These have varied stakes in the medical establishment's highly profitable “cholesterol” model and its costly, but largely ineffective, interventions. This orthodox regime heavily constrains the IRMCIH model's development, whilst applying double-standards for evidence and proof. These demands typically ignore the sociological context of scientific knowledge. It flags key constraints, including:
With a wide range of vitriolic critics within and outside academia, we focused on the case of an Emeritus Professor as a convenience sample. He had first-hand exposure to OAB for almost a decade across varied social media platforms. In 'Distinguishing online academic bullying', OAB is clearly differentiated from the traditional forms of bullying (eg. academic mobbing) that he had to negotiate after taking the unorthodox, but scientific, position for IRMCIH. Major aspects are shown in the article's abstract graphic, below- academic cyberbullies strategies in OAB may range from misrepresenting an employer's position as "official" to hypercritical academic bloggers whose chains of re-publication become sourced for defamatory online profiles.
There were also many minor forms that we may cover in a future article. For example, scholars' could signal ostracism in small ways, such as removing the Emeritus Professor as a co-contributor on their Google Scholar profiles.
The Heliyon journal has published Distinguishing online academic bullying: identifying new forms of harassment in a dissenting Emeritus Professor’s case. It is an open-access article that's freely available from sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402100431X.
Adjunct Professor Tim Noakes and I wrote it to foreground how the shift of academic discourse to online spaces without guardians presents cyberbullies from Higher Education (HE) with a novel opportunity to harass their peers and other vulnerable recipients. We argue that cyberbullying from HE employees is a neglected phenomenon, despite the dangers it can pose to academic free speech, as well as other negative outcomes.
Background to the Online Academic Bullying (OAB) research project
The inspiration for researching OAB as a distinctive phenomenon arose during the lead author’s presentation to a research group in November, 2018. In this talk, I presented on designing new emojis as conversation stoppers for combating trolling (SAME, 2018). The attendees' questions in response suggested the necessity of researching how cyber harassment plays out in academic disputes on social media platforms.
My original PostDoc research proposal aimed to research emoji design projects in Africa, whilst also working on the creative direction for Shushmoji™ emoji sticker sets (for example, Stop, academic bully! at https://createwith.net/academic.html). This particular set was inspired by the cyber harassment of insulin resistance model of chronic ill-health (IRMCIH) experts on Twitter by defenders of the dominant “cholesterol” model of chronic disease development (CMCDD).
As I began my PostDoc, a review of the academic cyberbullying literature produced a surprising result. There seemed to be very little conceptual or empirical research concerning academic employees who harass scholars online. In response to a neglected negative phenomenon that would seem highly important to study, my PostDoc's focus shifted to initiating the Online Academic Bullying (OAB) research project.
Academic free speech and digital voices
Many studies in the field of scientific communication have focused on the dissemination of medical disinformation. By contrast, very few seem to explore the legitimate use of digital voice by scientific experts and health professionals who must work around scientific suppression in HE. In the Health Sciences scientific suppression and intellectual harassment is particularly dangerous where it:
- entrenches an outdated and incorrect scientific model;
- suppresses scholarly debate over rival models;
- continues to support poor advice and interventions that result in sub-par outcomes versus proven and relatively inexpensive alternatives.
In HE, scientific suppression can be understood as a normative category of impedance that is unfair, unjust and counter to the standards of academic behaviour (Delborne, 2016). Such impedance is apparent in the treatment of dissenting scholars who challenge the CMCDD model, then become ostracised from the Health Sciences as "heretics". In theory, universities should encourage academic free speech and robust debate on the CMCDD versus IRMCIH models. By contrast, in HE practice, IRMCIH scholars cannot exercise their rights to academic free speech.
Academic freedom is a special right of academics- a right to freedom from prescribed orthodoxy in their teaching, research, and lives as academics (Turk, 2014). This right seeks to avoid corruption from the vested interests of other parties, which ranges from scholarly peers and university board members to corporate donors. This right is foundational in supporting scholars to advance and expand knowledge, for example by accommodating diverse voices (Saloojee, 2013).
Academic free speech is a failed ideal where IRMCIH scholars do not enjoy opportunities to research and teach this emergent paradigm. Instead, dissenting IRMCHI scientists must negotiate scientific suppression by a multitude of entrenched networks and embedded academics. These have varied stakes in the medical establishment's highly profitable “cholesterol” model and its costly, but largely ineffective, interventions. This orthodox regime heavily constrains the IRMCIH model's development, whilst applying double-standards for evidence and proof. These demands typically ignore the sociological context of scientific knowledge. It flags key constraints, including:
- The relatively minuscule funding for IRMCIH studies
- Many unethical ”ethical" or pseudo-skeptic "scientific" arguments used for delaying IR research projects
- Long-standing anti-IRMCIH, pro- CMCDD scholarly citation rings
- Academic mobs that defame IR scholars and create a chilling effect for their colleagues
- Likewise, pseudoskeptic academics, politicians and "science" journalists may unwittingly serve as agents of industry by diverting public attention from Fiat science™ and consensus silence to IRMCIH “failures”.
Online academic bullying as an emergent extension of scientific censorship 
A contemporary form of censorship exists that denies attention and stifles opportunities for turning scholarship and innovation into better options for public policy (Tufekci, 2017). For IRMCIH experts, cyber harassment has emerged as a 21st century form of attention-denial that CMCDD's defenders leverage. They apply a range of strategies to stifle dissident scientists' and health experts' outreach to online audiences and affinity networks. As this 21st century censorship matrix illustrates, cyber harassment is just one of many visible and direct strategies that powerful networks have used to censor dissenting IRMCIH scholars in HE.
 |
With a wide range of vitriolic critics within and outside academia, we focused on the case of an Emeritus Professor as a convenience sample. He had first-hand exposure to OAB for almost a decade across varied social media platforms. In 'Distinguishing online academic bullying', OAB is clearly differentiated from the traditional forms of bullying (eg. academic mobbing) that he had to negotiate after taking the unorthodox, but scientific, position for IRMCIH. Major aspects are shown in the article's abstract graphic, below- academic cyberbullies strategies in OAB may range from misrepresenting an employer's position as "official" to hypercritical academic bloggers whose chains of re-publication become sourced for defamatory online profiles.
Reporting on cyber-victimisation with routine activity theory
While writing our article, we also developed a reporting instrument for OAB recipients. Targets of academic cyberbullies can use a Google form at https://bit.ly/3pnyE6w to develop reports on their experiences of cyber harassment. They can share it with decision- and policy-makers at the institutions they are targeted from, as well as our OAB research project. This reporting instrument is based on Routine Activity Theory (RAT) and is being refined with IRMCIH and other experts' feedback. The problem of cyber harassment is not easy to fix, since it requires individual, systemic and collective action (Hodson, Gosse, Veletsianos, & Houlden, 2018). We hope that spotlighting OAB’s distinctive attacks will raise awareness amongst researchers and institutional policy makers. We argue that it is important for HE employers and related professional organisations to consider strategies that can guard against academic cyberbullies and their negative impacts.
Credits
Stop, academic bully! shushmoji™ graphics courtesy of Create With, Cape Town.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the funders, software developers, researchers and Heliyon's reviewers who have made the best version of this article possible:
The Noakes Foundation’s project team of Jayne Bullen, Jana Venter, Alethea Dzerefos Naidoo and Sisipho Goniwe have contributed to expanding the scope of the researchers’ OAB project. The software development contributions of Yugendra ‘Darryl’ Naidoo, Cheryl Mitchell and the support of Alwyn van Wyk (Younglings) and the developers Tia Demas, Ruan Erasmus, Paul Geddes, Sonwabile Langa and Zander Swanepoel have enabled the researchers to gain the broadest view of Twitter’s historical data. The feedback from the South African Multimodality in Education research group after the authors’ shared the Emeritus Professor’s case indirectly suggested the topic of this article. Mark Phillips and Dr Cleo Protogerou’s feedback on the ensuing manuscripts proved invaluable in guiding it into a tightly-focused research contribution. We would also like to thank CPUT’s Design Research Activities Workgroup (DRAW) for its feedback on a progress presentation, especially Professor Alettia Chisin, Dr Daniela Gachago and Associate Professor Izak van Zyl. He and Adjunct Professor Patricia Harpur provided valuable guidance that helped shape the OAB reporting tool into a productive research instrument.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-8983
