Caracterización y ubicación del sistema de softareas.

The internet can afford those with SEND an easier means of relating to their peers, and communication technologies can ‘act as a leveller’ (Cross et al., 2009, p.8) for those with disabilities. Kowalski and Fedina (2011) suggested that some with SEND might lack social skills and empathy, and be emotionally volatile. The possible increased inability to understand and develop relationships with others can lead to problems online as well as offline (Blandford, 2015a). However, the researchers also stressed that SEND covers a broad spectrum and over generalisations should be avoided. For example, someone with autism may suffer from social skills but someone with a sensory impairment, such as being deaf or blind, or someone who has a physical disability, such as being in a wheelchair,

64

might not suffer from difficulties in social skills in the same way (Cross et al., 2009).

Roekel et al. (2010) acknowledged that research into bullying has predominantly focused on adolescents in mainstream education contexts, with little attention on education institutions catering for the needs of young people with SEND. The researchers conducted their research in a school catering for pupils with a range of SEND. The researchers focussed on pupils who were on the Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The researchers highlighted that relative deficits of those on the ASD, such as in developing normal social interactions and relationships as well as in understanding the behaviours of others, as reasons for being at higher risk of being bullied. The researchers also highlighted reasons why those on the ASD were at a higher risk of bullying others, which included increased levels of aggressive behaviours and a limited insight in social processing, meaning that they may be bullying others without being aware of it. The researchers recognised that those on the ASD, and those with SEND generally, were not equally disabled in recognising bullying behaviours, and so this claim did not generally apply. The researchers placed importance on whether those on the ASD could actually perceive whether they were bullies or victims. The researchers found that their teachers perceived higher levels of bullying victimisation and perpetration than their pupils. In terms of victimisation, teachers perceived bullying at a rate of 30% and pupils 17%, and in terms of bullying others, teachers perceived at a rate of 46% and pupils 19%. These findings show that pupils with ASD perceived being a victim of bullying and bullying others less than their teachers. However, there may be conceptual differences of what was meant by bullying than different between the teachers and the pupils, which the researcher did not report on.

65

Chamberlain et al. (2010) highlighted in their research that 38% of school children with disabilities were worried about being bullied, and were more likely to feel that ‘less bullying’ (p.36) would improve their life than those without disabilities (25% and 18%, respectively). Bauman and Pero (2010) sampled 30 students aged 13–18 years who were either deaf or hard of hearing, and a further 22 students who were hearing students in the same age group. The researchers sought to establish whether or not deaf or hard of hearing students used technology to bully hearing students, especially if they had been the victims of bullying in the past. The findings showed that no deaf students had bullied hearing students. In fact, the researchers reported no statistically significant differences by hearing status for being a bully or cyberbully, or for being a victim of bullying or cyberbullying, but consideration should be given to the small sample size.

Those with SEND were found to be at higher risk of being victims of cyberbullying in Cross et al. (2009). The researchers found that of the 4% of the sample who reported having SEND, 16% were found to suffer from persistent cyberbullying, compared to a lower rate of 9% of the sample who reported not having SEND. These findings show that those with SEND were more likely to be cyberbullied. The researchers did not consider the relationship between those with SEND as cyberbullying others.

The Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA, 2011) surveyed 80 parents and carers who had a child with a physical disability (35% of the sample), special education needs (62% of the sample) or both (3% of the sample). A total of 96% of parents reported that their child had been bullied at school, with only 3% reporting that their child had not been bullied, whilst 1% did not know. In 85% of the cases,

66

parents and carers believed that the bullying was to do with their child’s SEND, with a further 11% unsure, and 4% believed it was not connected. This research highlighted a high prevalence of rate of those with SEND being victims of bullying, however, the data was collected from parents, and so could be biased. In any case, the voices of the victims were not heard, which is significant as their perception could have been different.

What can be garnered from the research above is that those with SEND have been found to be at higher risk of being bullied, and also perceived to be from the perspective of teachers. However, there is a dearth of research relating to whether those with SEND are engaging in cyberbullying as bullies, with not much more research on victimisation. Whilst it is plausible that those with SEND are at a heightened risk of being cyberbullied; nevertheless, the bullying might not be associated with their SEND characteristic(s) and so this relationship needs to be considered further.

Overall, research relating to the involvement of aged 16-19 years olds in cyberbullying as victims or bullies is limited. There has been more research concentrated on age and gender, compared to the other characteristics considered, but there is yet the case that large-scale research as been conducted in post-16 contexts to provide an additional perspective on these relationships. Furthermore, in relation to ethnicity, sexual orientation and SEND, it is not obvious that research has yet considered the 16-19 year old age group in terms of establishing the relationship between the these demographics, this age group, and being a cybervictim or cyberbully.

67

2.7 Reasons and Motivations for Engaging in and for Experiencing Bullying and Cyberbullying

Although bullying is not a new phenomenon, little research has been carried out in an effort to investigate the reasons and motivations for being a bully/cyberbully and being a victim/cybervictim. Such research is important in terms of increasing the overall understanding of cyberbullying as a phenomenon through the behaviour of cyberbullies and the experiences of cybervictims. In turn, this understanding can help to inform prevention and intervention strategies aimed at reducing cyberbullying. It is important to establish the motivations of those that bully others both online and offline because these are key for understanding the behaviour of young people in these contexts. Likewise, it is also important to gather from victims of online and offline bullying the reasons why they have been bullied. Disentangling the basis for bullying and being bullied can contribute to the overall understanding of cyberbullying as a phenomenon.

Cyberbullying behaviours vary considerably. According to Aftab (2006) (and cited in Sabella, 2009), four types of cyberbully (five including a subcategory) can be identified based on the motives for their behaviour. Aftab (ibid) explained that even though the method used to cyberbully might be the same, for example email or text message, the reason for carrying out the cyberbullying might be completely different. These types of cyberbully are:

• The vengeful angel, who steps in to protect a person who is targeted, and who would not usually identify themselves as a (cyber)bully. They see themselves as righting wrongs; getting revenge on those who have cyberbullied their friends or others.

68

• The power-hungry, who intentionally want to intimidate, control and show authority over their victims and make them fearful. Physical strength is not important to achieve their aim; instead the power comes from the use of technology. Most often they are offline bullies that also use technology as a way of attacking their victim.

• The revenge of the nerds (as a sub-category of the power-hungry), who use technology to level the imbalance they face offline in relation to physical strength. They are usually victims of offline bullying (Aftab suggests geeks and girls, who may lack physical strength). They empower themselves through the anonymity of technology in order to get revenge on those who have bullied them offline, without the risk of being physically hurt.

• The mean girls, who operate in a group and usually bully others for entertainment purposes or because they are bored. While typically girls, this is not always the case, but these cyberbullies often work in groups with the aim of attacking the their victim’s reputation and social relationships. They may be jealous or envious of their victim and want them to be hated, ignored and excluded by others. This type of cyberbullying tends to be a campaign, rather than a one-off incident. • The inadvertent (or accidental), who does not think about the

consequences of what they are doing and does not intend to hurt anyone. The careless attitude to their actions can result in others being hurt, because they hastily send something in anger or frustration. They are the one exception to the criteria ‘cyberbullying requires intent’, but the victim

69

does not understand the behaviour as unintentional, and therefore it is still cyberbullying.

These categories of cyberbully describe different motivations for engaging in cyberbullying behaviours, and have varying levels of intent to cause harm. For example, there is a stark contrast between power-hungry bullies and the inadvertent in terms of the level of intent to do harm.