Understanding Bullying and Cyberbullying Through an Ecological Systems Framework: the Value of Qualitative Interviewing in a Mixed Methods Approach

被引:8
作者
Mishna F. [1 ]
Birze A. [1 ]
Greenblatt A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, M5S 1V4, ON
关键词
Bullying and cyberbullying; Mixed methods research; Qualitative research benefits; Voices of children and youth;
D O I
10.1007/s42380-022-00126-w
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Recognized as complex and relational, researchers endorse a systems/social-ecological framework in examining bullying and cyberbullying. According to this framework, bullying and cyberbullying are examined across the nested social contexts in which youth live—encompassing individual features; relationships including family, peers, and educators; and ecological conditions such as digital technology. Qualitative inquiry of bullying and cyberbullying provides a research methodology capable of bringing to the fore salient discourses such as dominant social norms and otherwise invisible nuances such as motivations and dilemmas, which might not be accessed through quantitative studies. Through use of a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed methods study, the purpose of the current paper is to demonstrate the ways qualitative interviews contextualize quantitative findings and to present novel discussion of how qualitative interviews explain and enrich the quantitative findings. The following thematic areas emerged and are discussed: augmenting quantitative findings through qualitative interviews, contextualizing new or rapidly evolving areas of research, capturing nuances and complexity of perspectives, and providing moments for self-reflection and opportunities for learning. © 2022, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 229
页数:9
相关论文
共 79 条
  • [31] Harter S., The self-perception profile for children (manual), (1985)
  • [32] Harter S., Self-perception profile for adolescents: Manual and questionnaires, (2012)
  • [33] Hemming P.J., Mixing qualitative research methods in children’s geographies, Area, 40, 2, pp. 152-162, (2008)
  • [34] Jager T., Amado J., Matos A., Pessoa T., Analysis of experts’ and trainers’ views on cyberbullying, Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20, 2, pp. 169-181, (2010)
  • [35] Johnson G., Internet use and child development: The techno-microsystem, Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology (AJEDP), 10, pp. 32-43, (2010)
  • [36] Johnson G., Puplampu K., A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of the Internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34, pp. 19-28, (2008)
  • [37] Johnson M., Digital literacy and digital citizenship: Approaches to girls’ online experiences, eGirls, eCitizens, pp. 339-360, (2015)
  • [38] Lenhart A., Duggan M., Perrin A., Stepler R., Rainie H., Parker K., Teens, social media & technology overview 2015, Pew Research Center [Internet & American Life Project]., (2015)
  • [39] Lietz C.A., Zayas L.E., Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners, Advances in Social Work, 11, 2, pp. 188-202, (2010)
  • [40] McKim C.A., The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 2, pp. 202-222, (2017)