cyberbullying in higher education a literature review

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, cyberbullying in higher education: a review of the literature based on bibliometric analysis.

ISSN : 0368-492X

Article publication date: 21 April 2023

Issue publication date: 15 August 2024

The purpose of this study is to review cyberbullying incidents among students in higher education institutions (HEIs). Cyberbullying has become a threat to students' wellbeing as it penetrates one life due to the pervasive availability of digital technologies.

Design/methodology/approach

Through a bibliometric analysis, this study analyzes 361 journal publications from the Web of Science (WoS) based on bibliographic coupling and co-word analysis.

Significant themes were found related to cyberbullying in HEIs, particularly related to the impact and determinants of cyberbullying on students. Bibliographic coupling produces three clusters on the current research fronts, while co-word analysis produces four clusters on the prediction of future trends. Implications of this phenomenon warrant comprehensive intervention by the HEIs management to dampen its impact on students' wellbeing. Findings would enhance the fundamental understanding through science mapping on the prevalent and potential incidence of cyberbullying.

Practical implications

Crucial insights will benefit the government, HEIs’ management, educators, scholars, policymakers and parents to overcome this dreadful phenomenon of cyberbullying. Several managerial interventions and mitigation strategies are proposed to reduce and control the occurrence of cyberbullying.

Originality/value

This study presents a bibliometric review to uncover the knowledge structure of cyberbullying studies in HEIs.

• Cyberbullying
• Higher education
• Bibliometric analysis
• Web of Science

Fauzi, M.A. (2024), "Cyberbullying in higher education: a review of the literature based on bibliometric analysis", Kybernetes , Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 2914-2933. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2022-1667

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• DOI: 10.1108/k-12-2022-1667
• Corpus ID: 258295680

Cyberbullying in higher education: a review of the literature based on bibliometric analysis

• Muhammad Ashraf Fauzi
• Published in Kybernetes 21 April 2023
• Education, Psychology

6 Citations

Investigating the adverse effects of social media and cybercrime in higher education: a case study of an online university, understanding the influence of cybercrime law absence on cyberbullying in higher institutions of learning: a case of the international university of management, transforming higher education institutions through edi leadership: a bibliometric exploration, green information technology and green information systems: science mapping of present and future trends, creating a positive environment for finding and asking questions in class, medical tourism in south east asia: science mapping of present and future trends, 95 references, cyberbullying: a systematic literature review to identify the factors impelling university students towards cyberbullying, cyberbullying in higher education: a literature review, bullying and cyberbullying: a bibliometric analysis of three decades of research in education, management of cyberbullying: a qualitative exploratory case study of a nigerian university, cyberbullying among university students: gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives, knowledge hiding behavior in higher education institutions: a scientometric analysis and systematic literature review approach, study of cyberbullying among adolescents in recent years: a bibliometric analysis, cyberbullying: the hidden side of college students, cyberbullying in elementary and middle school students: a systematic review, factors affecting cyberbullying involvement among students of northwestern university, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Cyberbullying in higher education

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options.

• Abarna S Sheeba J Pradeep Devaneyan S (2023) A novel ensemble model for identification and classification of cyber harassment on social media platform Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems: Applications in Engineering and Technology 10.3233/JIFS-230346 45 :1 (13-36) Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3233/JIFS-230346
• Wang C Li X Xia L (2023) Long-term effect of cybervictimization on displaced aggressive behavior across two years Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107611 141 :C Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107611
• Achuthan K Nair V Kowalski R Ramanathan S Raman R (2023) Cyberbullying research — Alignment to sustainable development and impact of COVID-19 Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107566 140 :C Online publication date: 1-Mar-2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107566
• Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Cyberbullying victimization in higher education.

Few studies have analyzed cyberbullying victimization among university students in comparison to research conducted in other educational levels. The main purpose was to analyze the associations between the cyberbullying victimization and social and ...

Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling

Researchers are concerned with identifying the risk and protective factors associated with adolescents' involvement in cyberharassment. One such factor is parental mediation of children's electronic technology use. Little attention has been given to how ...

Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cyberbullying and factors in cyberbullying perpetration with a national sample of 4000 adolescents selected through multi-stage cluster sampling. The respondents were 2166 boys (54.1%) and 1834 girls (...

Information

Published in.

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Author tags.

• Cyberbullying awareness
• Cyberbullying prevalence
• Higher education cyberbullying
• Social media cyberbullying
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 11 Total Citations View Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0
• Gümüş M Çakır R Korkmaz Ö (2023) Investigation of pre-service teachers’ sensitivity to cyberbullying, perceptions of digital ethics and awareness of digital data security Education and Information Technologies 10.1007/s10639-023-11785-7 28 :11 (14399-14421) Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-023-11785-7
• Celuch M Savela N Oksa R Latikka R Oksanen A (2022) Individual factors predicting reactions to online harassment among Finnish professionals Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107022 127 :C Online publication date: 9-Apr-2022 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107022
• Kaur M Saini M (2022) Indian government initiatives on cyberbullying: A case study on cyberbullying in Indian higher education institutions Education and Information Technologies 10.1007/s10639-022-11168-4 28 :1 (581-615) Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-022-11168-4
• Quayyum F Cruzes D Jaccheri L (2021) Cybersecurity awareness for children International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100343 30 :C Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100343
• Kopiś-Posiej N Cudo A Tużnik P Wojtasiński M Augustynowicz P Zabielska-Mendyk E Bogucka V (2021) The impact of problematic Facebook use and Facebook context on empathy for pain processing Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106936 124 :C Online publication date: 1-Nov-2021 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106936
• Sarmiento A Herrera-López M Zych I (2019) Is cyberbullying a group process? Online and offline bystanders of cyberbullying act as defenders, reinforcers and outsiders Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.037 99 :C (328-334) Online publication date: 1-Oct-2019 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.037
• Kokkinos C Antoniadou N (2019) Cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among undergraduate student teachers through the lens of the General Aggression Model Computers in Human Behavior 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.007 98 :C (59-68) Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.007

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

The Infona portal uses cookies, i.e. strings of text saved by a browser on the user's device. The portal can access those files and use them to remember the user's data, such as their chosen settings (screen view, interface language, etc.), or their login data. By using the Infona portal the user accepts automatic saving and using this information for portal operation purposes. More information on the subject can be found in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. By closing this window the user confirms that they have read the information on cookie usage, and they accept the privacy policy and the way cookies are used by the portal. You can change the cookie settings in your browser.

• Login or register account

INFONA - science communication portal

• advanced search
• conferences
• Collections

Review Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review $("#expandableTitles").expandable();

• Contributors

Fields of science

• Bibliography

Computers in Human Behavior > 2017 > 69 > C > 268-274

Identifiers

User assignment

Assignment remove confirmation

You're going to remove this assignment. are you sure.

Lynette K. Watts

• Radiologic Sciences Department, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Bridwell Hall Office 201E, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA

Jessyca Wagner

• Radiologic Sciences Department, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Bridwell Hall, Office 216, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA

Benito Velasquez

• Athletic Training Department, School of Allied Health, Lincoln Memorial University, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway, Harrogate, TN 37752, USA

Phyllis I. Behrens

• University of Missouri Extension, 3950 Newman Road, Plaster Hall 107A, Joplin, MO 64801-1512, USA

Higher education cyberbullying Cyberbullying prevalence Cyberbullying awareness Social media cyberbullying

Additional information

• Read online
• Add to read later
• Add to collection
• Add to followed

Export to bibliography

• Terms of service

Accessibility options

• Report an error / abuse

Reporting an error / abuse

Sending the report failed.

Submitting the report failed. Please, try again. If the error persists, contact the administrator by writing to [email protected].

You can adjust the font size by pressing a combination of keys:

• CONTROL + + increase font size
• CONTROL + – decrease font

You can change the active elements on the page (buttons and links) by pressing a combination of keys:

• TAB go to the next element
• SHIFT + TAB go to the previous element

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Social Psychology
• Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying: A Systematic Literature Review to Identify the Factors Impelling University Students Towards Cyberbullying

• August 2020
• IEEE Access 8(99):2020

• Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

• University of Portsmouth

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• S. Tamilselvi

• Civica Moehaimin Dhewanty

• Budi Darma Setiawan

• Juveria Fathima

• Padmaja Kadiri
• S.Jayanth Naik

• Philippe Ea
• Jiahui Xiang
• Osman Salem

• Aye Thazin Khine

• Zaw Ye Htut
• Nobuyuki Hamajima

• José Manuel García-Fernández

• Int J Ment Health Addiction

• Emrah Emirtekin

• Sadia Musharraf

• Muhammad Anis-ul-Haque

• PSYCHIAT RES

• PERS INDIV DIFFER

• J AFFECT DISORDERS

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Education & Teaching

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Cyberbullying in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature Kindle Edition

• Print length 27 pages
• Language English
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publication date January 12, 2016
• File size 174 KB
• Page Flip Enabled
• Word Wise Not Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting Enabled
• See all details

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B01AKQK0B2
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Paul D Seeley; 1st edition (January 12, 2016)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 12, 2016
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 174 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 27 pages

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Report an issue

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Cyberbullying: A Systematic Literature Review to Identify the Factors Impelling University Students Towards Cyberbullying

IEEE Access

Related Papers

Beth Sockman

Helen Cowie , Carrie Myers

Students within the university sector are ‘digital natives’. Technology is not ‘new’ or ‘alien’ to them, but rather it is an accepted and normalised part of everyday life (Simmons et al., 2016). With this level of expertise and competence, we could assume that university students are relatively happy with their online relationships. However, in recent years there has been a growing realisation that, for some students at least, the online world is a very dangerous place. The age of the students is of key importance here too, as those in higher and further education are young adults, rather than children in need of parental support. From this perspective, the university as an institution has a duty of care to its students in their learning environment regardless of their age. In this article, we consider the social and cultural contexts which either promote or discourage cyberbullying among university students. Finally, the implications for policies, training and awareness-raising are discussed along with ideas for possible future research in this under researched area. Key words: bullying/cyberbullying at university; bystanders; bullies; victims; cyberbullying and the law, cyberbully/victims, cultural context

Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research

Humaira Jami

The purpose of the study was to explore modes, strategies, and consequences of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among university students. In-depth interviews of 14 volunteer university students (8 male and 6 female) were conducted who volunteered to participate in the study in which 10 participants were “cybervictims” whereas 4 were “cyberbully-victim”. Interview guide was used for conducting unstructured interviews. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed different experiences in cyberspace with respect to gender and role (cybervictim and cyberbully-victim) in experiencing cyberbullying and cyber-victimization. Three themes emerged that is psychological consequences (emotional, behavioral, and cognitive), social consequences (family and peers), and change in lifestyle (online, offline, and academic). Facebook was found to be the most prevalent mode of cyberbullying. The cyberbully-victim participants derived more happiness while bullying and had revengeful attitud...

Journal of interpersonal violence,

Technology has many positive effects on education, but negative effects also exist. One of the negative effects is cyberbullying spreading out of school boundaries to the social networks. The increasing popularity of social media among youngsters engenders cyberbullies who exploit the virtual environment besides the usual emails. This distresses the students and adversely affects their families, teachers, and others around them. Although research studies mainly concentrate on prior education, there seems to be a need to investigate the situation in higher education. This study focuses on students studying technology and related disciplines, who are hence likely to be well connected with cyberspace, and explores their awareness about cyberbullying. The findings reveal that female students have significantly less awareness than males. This study will help address some gender issues in cyberbullying.

Cem güzeller

The aim of this study is to determine and analyse the relationships between the cyberbullying perceptions of university students and their psychological aggression behaviours. The population of the study in the relationship survey model included 250 university students from different Faculties at Akdeniz University (Antalya/TURKEY). In order to measure the cyberbullying perceptions and psychological aggression behaviours of these university students, the "Cyberbullying Questionnaire" and the "Psychological Aggression Questionnaire" were used. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the relationships among the variables used in the study. Results of this study revealed that there is a positive and moderate level relationship between cyberbullying perceptions and psychological aggression behaviours. Moreover, there is a negative and high-level relationship between cyberbullying perceptions and gender.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research

John Mark R . Asio

In the advent of the "new normal" during the pandemic era, strategies to teach and learn switched to online. Students' behavior and attitude also shifted from face-to-face to online. This study aims to assess the students' profiles and the prevalence of cyberbullying in the higher education institutions in Central Luzon, Philippines. The study used a descriptive-correlational technique with the help of an online survey to gather data. Using a convenience sampling technique, 300 higher education students participated in the online survey during the first semester of 2021-2022. In order to attain the objective of the study, the investigators used a standardized instrument. With the help of SPSS 23, the data analyst analyzed the gathered data using the following statistical tools: frequency, weighted mean, and non-parametrical tests like Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman rho. The investigator found that the studentrespondents were "never" cyberbullying victims or offenders. Furthermore, statistical inferences showed a variation for cyberbullying offenders as to age and sponsorship/scholarship and a weak indirect relationship between cyberbullying offenders and sponsorship/scholarship characteristics of the students. The investigators recommended pertinent implications for the new normal of learning among students and the institution from the study results.

Information Systems Education Journal

Jiyoon Yoon

Carlos P . Zalaquett

Cyberbullying is commonly presented as affecting K-12 populations. Current research suggests cyberbullying continues in college. A diverse sample of 613 university students was surveyed to study their cyberbullying experiences in high school and college. Nineteen percent of the sample reported being a victim of cyberbullying in college and 35% of this subsample reported being cyberbullied in high school. Additional findings and practical implications are presented.

Fatin Athirah

Participants were 439 college students who were asked how often they had experienced each of a series of bullying behaviors since they have been in college. Results indicated that 38% of college students knew someone who had been cyberbullied, 21.9% had been cyberbullied, and 8.6% had cyberbullying someone else. It was apparent that some forms of electronic media are more commonly used to cyberbully others than are other forms. All the cyberbullying behaviors and traditional bullying behaviors were significantly positively inter-correlated. There were no significant gender or ethnic group differences in any of the cyberbullying behaviors.

The Investigation of Predictors of Cyberbullying andCyber Victimization in University Students

Gizem Akcan

Information and communication technologies catch the attention of people via media that some problems like cyber bullying and cyber victimization are also increased with technological developments. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of gender, frequency of internet usage, perceived academic achievement on cyber bullying, and victimization. The research sample consisted of 151 (76 female,75 male) high school and university students. Demographic Information Form, Cyber Bullying and Cyber Victimization Scales were administered to the participants. According to the results of the Mann Whitney U-test, males were more likely to be cyberbulliers than females; however, they were also more likely to be victims. In the correlational analysis, it was determined that cyberbullying correlated positively with cybervictimization. Furthermore, multi regression analysis showed that cyberbullying was predicted by perceived academic achievement. However, the results of the multi regression analysis indicated that cybervictimization was predicted by frequency of internet usage.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Education Research International

Chantal Faucher , Wanda Cassidy

Nafsika Antoniadou

Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Terapan

Kezia Yemima

EUROASIA SUMMIT (Congress on Scientific Researches and Recent Trends-8th)

Ceren Çubukçu Çerasi

Dr Yusri Bin Kamin

New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences

New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences (PROSOC)

Shawn Ellis

Mohinder Singh

International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation

Elena BUJOREAN

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Prof.Dr. Bahadır Erişti , Yavuz Akbulut

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

Marta Mangiarulo

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Helen Cowie

Tammy Zacchilli

Cyberbullying

Esharenana Adomi

Applied Quantitative Analysis

mark april barbado

Journal of Information Systems and Informatics

Albertina Iileka

Ellen Kraft

Journal of Human Sciences

Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies

Memory Mabika

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10244080

Cyberbullying and the Faculty Victim Experience: Perceptions and Outcomes

Jillian r. williamson yarbrough.

1 Management Department, West Texas A&M University, 2501 4th Ave, Canyon, TX 79016 USA

Katelynn Sell

2 Nova Southeastern University, 3300 S. University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328-2004 USA

3 Bilingual and ESL Education, West Texas A&M University, 2501 4th Ave, Canyon, TX 79016 USA

Leslie Ramos Salazar

4 Business Communication, West Texas A&M University, 2501 4th Ave, Canyon, TX 79016 USA

Associated Data

The data that supports the findings of this study is available from the corresponding auther, JRWY, upon reasonable request.

Cyberbullying affects US youth, adolescents, and adults and can occur in various settings. Among the academic literature exploring cyberbullying, most discuss cyberbullying of youth and adolescents within the K-12 academic setting. While some studies address cyberbullying targeting adults, a limited amount of research has been conducted on the topic of cyberbullying among adults within the higher education context. Of the studies that explore cyberbullying in higher education, a considerable proportion focus on cyberbullying incidents between college students. Less discussed, however, are the experiences of university faculty who have been cyberbullied by either their students, fellow faculty, or administrators. Few, if any, studies address cyberbullying of faculty as the phenomenon relates to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following qualitative study aims to fill this gap through examining the lived experiences of faculty victims of cyberbullying. Utilizing the theoretical lens of disempowerment theory, researchers recruited a diverse population of twenty-five university faculty from across the USA who self-reported being victims of cyberbullying. The study analyzes participants’ interview responses to determine common experiences of faculty and overarching themes concerning cyberbullying in the academic workplace, particularly within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team applied disempowerment theory to support thematic analysis. In addition, the present article offers potential solutions for supporting faculty as they navigate virtual learning environments. The study’s findings hold practical implications for faculty, administrators, and stakeholders in institutions of higher education who seek to implement research-driven policies to address cyberbullying on their campuses.

Introduction

Cyberbullying entails using electronic devices to bully another person through threats, spreading rumors, and/or impersonating others. Cyberbullying can occur in various digital settings such as in email correspondence, text messages, or on social media platforms. Cyberbullying is a component of cyber-abuse, or online abusive interpersonal behaviors that are overly aggressive in nature and that threaten, harass, embarrass, or socially ostracize the victim (Piotrowski, 2012 ). The phenomenon has been growing in prevalence and is on the rise worldwide (Cook, 2021 ). While significant academic research has examined cyberbullying among youth and adolescents (Calvete et al., 2010 ; Hutson et al., 2018 , Li et al., 2016 ; Nikolaou, 2021 ; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010 ), fewer research studies have explored cyberbullying among adults. Yet, most adults have first-hand or second-hand experience with cyberbullying. Indeed, in 2014, the Pew Research Center reported that 75% of US adults have witnessed cyberbullying while 40% of US adults have personally experienced some form of online harassment (Duggan, 2014 ).

The experiences of adult victims of cyberbullying proves distinct from the experiences of youth victims (Scheff, 2019 ). One unique aspect involves adults’ experiences with cyberbullying in the workplace (Chapel et al., 2019 ). Workplace bullying is defined as a systematic, repetitive engagement of interpersonally abusive behavior that negatively impacts the victim and the organization (Sansone & Sansone, 2015 ). While workplace bullying previously occurred primarily face-to-face, technology is enabling a virtual form, cyberbullying. In a large study of workplace conditions, Kowalski et al. ( 2018 ) found that 20% of workers reported experiencing cyberbullying. This proves especially concerning since cyberbullying leads to problematic outcomes for both the individual victim and the organization for which they work. First, the targets of workplace bullying may experience mental distress, sleep disturbances, fatigue, energy deprivation, depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders. Cyberbullying may even lead to victims’ committing suicide (Alipan et al., 2021 ; Sansone & Sansone, 2015 ). Second, cyberbullying hurts organizational effectiveness by damaging organizational culture, employee well-being, employee work engagement, and employee retention (Karthikeyan, 2020 ; Muhonen et al., 2017 ).

Clearly, the issue of cyberbullying in the workplace is significant and growing. Studying specific work environments can yield targeted solutions to the problem. One industry that is grappling with cyberbullying’s deleterious effects is academia. The literature that has studied cyberbullying within the higher education context has primarily concentrated on the experiences of college students who have been bullied by other students (Cimke & Cerit, 2021 ; Faucher et al., 2014 ; Khine et al., 2020 ; Kowalski et al., 2022 ; Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012 ; Varghese & Pistole, 2017 ; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015 ). A limited number of peer-reviewed research articles have explored the effects of cyberbullying on college and university faculty who have experienced cyberbullying within a workplace context.

Despite the topic not receiving significant discussion in the academic research, the cyberbullying of college and university faculty proves a pervasive problem. Faculty regularly experience cyberbullying not only from students, but from colleagues, superiors, and the general public (Cassidy et al., 2016 ; Cassidy et al., 2017 ; Cuevas, 2018 ; Lloro-Bidart, 2018 ; Meriläinen et al., 2016 ; Weiss, 2020 ). An examination of whether the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to augmented levels of cyberbullying against faculty proves especially necessary. Due to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty are increasingly engaging with students and colleagues through online learning management systems, email, and social media. Apart from engaging in increased amounts of online communication, many faculty saw their work duties shift to a virtual format for several months during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, various colleges and universities have shifted courses that had been conducted previously “in-person” in brick-and-mortar classrooms to an online format (Clemmons et al., 2022 ; Fogg et al., 2020 ; Kourgiantakis et al., 2021 ). Since the nature of communication, collaboration, and coursework has changed significantly in academia during the COVID-19 pandemic, the forms and amount of cyberbullying of college faculty may have, likewise, been transformed.

One reason this may be the case is that increases in electronic forms of communication contribute to heightened levels of cyberbullying. When people communicate virtually, they receive fewer social cues, have an increased sense of anonymity, and feel less concern over the tone of their message due to the asynchronous nature of the communication (Wildermuth & Davis, 2012 ). When considering the higher education workplace for faculty, the amount of time that faculty spend working online correlates to the likelihood that faculty become cyberbullying victims (Cassidy et al., 2014 ). Since the COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater amounts of electronic communication between faculty and students and increases in the number of job-related duties that faculty perform virtually, faculty may be more likely to experience cyberbullying. However, to the researchers’ best understanding, academic research studies on the topic have yet to be published on the subject. The following study seeks to fill this gap through conducting a qualitative analysis of interviews with 25 university faculty from across the USA who self-reported that they had been victimized by cyberbullying in the workplace. Specifically, this study seeks to explore university faculty’s lived cyberbullying experiences using disempowerment theory as a framework (Kane & Montgomery, 1998 ).

According to the disempowerment theory, individuals who feel inadequate are at risk of employing power assertions, including violence, to control people who they perceive as threatening (Archer, 1994 ). The theory identifies a range of risk factors that may predict the use of violence to re-establish power, authority, or control of others in a relationship (Bosco et al., 2022 ; McKenry et al., 2006 ). Individual factors such as self-esteem, personality, mental health issues, substance misuse, family origin, and insecure attachment can make a person more prone to abuse others. According to disempowerment theory, acts of violence or aggression are ultimately seen as an individual’s attempt to reassert power and maintain control over another individual (Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011 ; Mendoza, 2011 ).

Disempowerment theory offers a theoretical framework to understand cyberbullying perpetration and victimization based on the power dynamics of workplace relationships (Kane & Montgomery, 1998 ). With this theoretical perspective, cyberbullying in the workplace can be at least partially explained by increased feelings of disempowerment among employees. Feelings of disempowerment lead to negative emotions and job attitudes that disrupt work-related goals (Kituyi, 2021 ). When employees feel disempowered in relationships within a work context, employees may attack others to regain a sense of empowerment over their victims. Over time, this creates a negative work environment, which can adversely influence workplace productivity (Farley et al., 2015 ). In higher education, disempowerment theory posits that power imbalances can occur between faculty and students, faculty and staff, and faculty and administrators given varying ranks, positions, and years of work-related experience (Keashly & Neuman, 2010 ; Woudstra et al., 2018 ). From this disempowerment perspective, workplace cyberbullying leads to negative outcomes for victims such as high stress, demoralization, and low mental well-being (O’Donnell et al., 2010 ; Tsang & Liu, 2016 ).

Apart from applying disempowerment theory to examine faculty’s lived experiences of cyberbullying in the academic workplace, the study elaborates on the frequency and forms of cyberbullying that faculty members face. Furthermore, the article details the negative impacts of cyberbullying on faculty. Finally, the authors connect the study’s findings with the extant literature and propose practical solutions to the current issue of cyberbullying in academia.

Literature Review

Cyberbullying is associated with significant negative outcomes such as depression, low self-esteem, emotional distress, and even self-harm (Celik et al., 2012 ; Coyne et al., 2016 ; Eyuboglu et al., 2021 ). There are numerous forms of cyberbullying such as hate speech, harassment, and trolling and each form will have different consequences and outcomes (Park et al., 2021 ; Saladino et al., 2020 ; Xu & Trzaskawka, 2021 ). Various research studies have explored cyberbullying among youth in the K-12 learning environment, concluding that cyberbullying proves prevalent in K-12 schools (Calvete et al., 2010 ; Hutson et al., 2018 ; Li et al., 2016 ; Nikolaou, 2021 ; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010 ). Significant research has also been conducted concerning college students’ cyberbullying experiences. Like K-12 students, a substantial proportion of college students—upwards of half of college students—report experiencing cyberbullying within the last 6 months (Kowalski et al., 2022 ). College students often report receiving cyber abuse from their fellow student peers, causing significant harm to victims’ emotional wellbeing (Cimke & Cerit, 2021 ; Faucher et al., 2014 ; Khine et al., 2020 ; Kowalski et al., 2022 ; Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012 ; Varghese & Pistole, 2017 ; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015 ). Additionally, there is a growing body of literature examining the adult experience with cyberbullying in the workplace (Chapel et al., 2019 ; Coyne et al, 2016 ; Vranjes et al, 2017 ). As the present paper concentrates on cyberbullying that targets faculty in the workplace, the literature review will primarily focus on this aspect of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying in the Workplace

Several studies have examined cyberbullying in the workplace among adult populations, concluding that cyberbullying had deleterious effects on worker’s emotional well-being, overall social interactions at work, job satisfaction, and job commitment. Specifically, Kowalski et al. ( 2018 ) found that cyberbullying victimization among employees led to enhanced counterproductive work behavior, depression, and reduced job satisfaction. In a large study featuring 254 white collar employees across several corporations, Loh and Snyman ( 2020 ) determined that workplace cyberbullying led to an increased level of perceived stress, causing reduced job satisfaction. In the study, females reported more negative effects from workplace cyberbullying than males (Loh & Snyman, 2020 ). Another study documented that perceived cyberbullying across industries positively related with social vulnerability and social withdrawal (Qaisar et al., 2020 ). In a cross-sectional study among employees, Makalesi et al. ( 2022 ) concluded that workplace cyberbullying was positively correlated with employee burnout, which indirectly affected employee work engagement in the organization.

Several studies have also explored workplace cyberbullying in the healthcare field. For instance, Farley et al. ( 2015 ) found that 42.2% of trainee doctors experienced cyberbullying, and this negatively impacted their job satisfaction and mental strain. In another study, Park and Choi ( 2018 ) noted that 8% of nurses experienced workplace cyberbullying, which the authors linked to nurses’ intentions to leave their current jobs in general and tertiary hospitals especially in cases where nurse victims received little social support. Another study indicated that the workplace cyberbullying of nurses was shown to lead to increased job stress and reduced self-esteem (Kim & Choi, 2021 ).

Workplace cyberbullying is also evident in online labor fields. D’Cruz and Noronha ( 2018a ) conducted interviews among 13 clients and freelancers who used electronic platforms as part of their jobs. The researchers indicated themes of victims seeking resolution and moving on after the workplace cyberbullying experiences. In a follow-up study, D’Cruz and Noronha ( 2018b ) also interviewed 13 clients and freelancers in online jobs and found that when seeking resolution from the cyberbullying experience, employees focused on maintaining platform mechanisms, implementing interventions, taking initiative, and being cautious. Further, employees overcame cyberbullying through consulting informal social support systems, through avoiding risks, and by increasing their sense of control and personal growth. As can be seen in the aforementioned studies, cyberbullying has become a widespread problem across various industries. The next section of the literature review will discuss the academic literature related to cyberbullying in academia, which can have a direct impact on faculty’s experiences of cyberbullying within the workplace.

Cyberbullying in Higher Education

While the overall amount of academic literature focusing on university faculty’s experiences with cyberbullying proves scant, some studies have researched the perceptions of students and faculty related to cyberbullying in academia. Molluzzo et al. ( 2013 ) examined perceptions of cyberbullying of both full-time and part-time faculty at a large, private metropolitan university. The authors documented that 98% of faculty participants believed cyberbullying was unethical. Further, the researchers identified an overwhelming perception among both faculty and student participants that their university needed to do more to educate students, faculty, and staff about the damaging effects of cyberbullying (Molluzzo et al., 2013 ). Molluzzo and Lawler ( 2014 ) explored both student and faculty perceptions related to cyberbullying at Pace University, a private university. The researchers determined that students were almost twice as likely as faculty to identify cyberbullying as a significant issue affecting them personally (47.4% of students vs. 26.2% of faculty). The researchers’ survey showed that 76.3% of students and 55.6% of faculty agreed that their university is working to address cyberbullying. In another study, Meter et al. ( 2021 ) determined that among the sixteen college student participants in their exploratory, qualitative study, students overwhelmingly viewed cyberbullying as a gray area. Furthermore, students’ definitions of cyberbullying were highly varied. However, there existed a relative consensus among student participants that the distance between the bully and victim empowered the bully (Meter et al., 2021 ).

Other academic research exploring cyberbullying in higher education has documented the substantial prevalence of cyberbullying on college campuses in the USA and Canada. In Molluzzo et al.’s ( 2013 ) study, 12% of faculty participants were aware of the cyberbullying of students at the university, and 10% reported being cyberbullied themselves by a student or another faculty member through social media. In Molluzzo and Lawler’s ( 2014 ) follow-up study, 16.0% of students and 6.3% of faculty were aware of cyberbullying at other institutions. Cassidy et al. ( 2016 ) reported incidents of cyberbullying from four Canadian universities and found that 25% of surveyed faculty members had experienced cyberbullying by students and15% had been attacked by colleagues. Additionally, the study identified that females were more likely to be the target of cyberbullying. Cassidy et al. ( 2017 ) conducted an additional study with a qualitative thematic analysis regarding the impacts of cyberbullying on post-secondary students, faculty, and administrators from four Canadian universities. Interestingly, students primarily reported being cyberbullied by other students, while faculty reported being cyberbullied by both students and colleagues. Hollis ( 2021 ) examined cyberbullying in the higher education workplace among work colleagues. A sample of 578 higher education professionals and faculty members were collected in late 2017/early 2018. Forty-five percent of respondents reported they were targets of cyberbullying in higher education via email, social media, and/or text communication from colleagues in their higher education work environment. Uniquely the study applied social dominance theory to examine whether women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community reported more incidents of cyberbullying. Through a chi-square analysis, it was confirmed that people of color and members of the LGBTQ community were more likely to be targets of cyberbullying in higher education. Meter et al. ( 2021 ) learned that nearly all college student participants in their qualitative exploratory study had observed or experienced cyberbullying.

While academic literature that focuses on the cyberbullying of faculty in the workplace proves scarce, a few academic research studies have documented the negative impacts of cyberbullying on college faculty. In their study of the various episodes of cyberbullying occurring at four Canadian universities, Cassidy et al. ( 2017 ) found that the negative impacts of cyberbullying proved consistent across age and position/title. Participants reported that cyberbullying had negative effects on their mental health, physical health, and perceptions of self. Victims, likewise, reported that cyberbullying harmed their personal and professional lives while also causing victims to have increased concern for their personal safety (Cassidy et al., 2017 ). Blizard ( 2018 ) explored the negative impact of faculty cyberbullied by their students. Targeted faculty experienced negative physical, emotional, relational, and occupational effects. One faculty member even resigned their position and moved to another country due to cyberbullying. The researcher noted that faculty victims encountered detrimental effects in their relationships with others. Indeed, 74% of victims felt their relationships with students deteriorated, while 37% concluded that their relationships with both colleagues and administrators declined (Blizard, 2018 ).

The literature communicates that adults are experiencing cyberbullying in the workplace and, specifically, faculty are experiencing cyberbullying in their role as educational facilitators. While there is emerging research specifically addressing cyberbullying in academia, there is a gap in the literature that identifies faculty victims’ perceptions of cyberbullying. In a similar vein, few studies have explored the lasting, negative impacts of cyberbullying on college faculty. Insight from faculty on viable solutions to cyberbullying has, likewise, been largely unexplored. As such, this study will contribute to existing research by examining the experiences of faculty victims of cyberbullying and faculty victims’ beliefs on how cyberbullying in the academic workplace should be resolved. By conducting and analyzing faculty interviews, the authors gathered new perspectives not addressed in prior research. Moreover, as few studies have utilized disempowerment theory to explain cyberbullying incidents targeting college faculty, the current study adds much to the extant literature.

Research Questions

• RQ1: What factors explain cyberbullying perpetration against faculty?
• RQ2: How did faculty cyberbullying experiences change during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ3: What are the challenges of faculty dealing with cyberbullying?

The mixed-method study employed a phenomenological, qualitative research design with descriptive statistical methods. This methodology was particularly appropriate as it allowed the researchers to acquire, and later convey, the lived experiences of research participants. Life experiences are difficult to study through quantitative inquiry, as individual experiences cannot be replicated (Lloyd et al., 2014 ). While individual experiences are unique, the phenomenological research approach seeks to arrive at a description of the nature of a particular group through understanding commonalities of lived experiences within an identified group (Creswell, 2013 ). Through interviewing individuals who have first-hand knowledge of an event or an experience, researchers seek to understand each participant, what participants have experienced in terms of this phenomenon, and what contexts or situations have typically influenced their experiences (Moustakas, 1994 ).

Participants

The research team consisted of four faculty members from a mid-size, regional state university in the Southwest. Three members of the research team were business professors, while the fourth member was a faculty member in the department of education. All research team members had conducted previous research on the topic of cyberbullying in the workplace. Several members of the research team had published individual book chapters in a book edited by one of the research team members.

The research team selected subjects through purposive sampling, specifically recruiting tenure track and non-tenure track faculty currently teaching in higher education institutions in the USA. Researchers recruited 25 participants to engage in individual qualitative interviews. Recruitment of participants continued until researchers reached theoretical saturation regarding the themes and topics being discussed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). Further, 25 participants are consistent with Creswell’s ( 2013 ) guidelines of between five and 25 participants for a phenomenological study. Participants had to meet the following criteria: at least 18 years old, currently serving in a faculty position at a higher education institution, and having experience teaching at least one online course within the past year. Participants were recruited via email, word-of-mouth, and oral presentations. Researchers examined all forms of cyberbullying. Participant demographics are listed in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Demographics of the participants

After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the researchers recruited participants using purposeful sampling. Researchers recruited participants by emailing announcements to faculty discussion groups and listservs. Researchers also used word of mouth to recruit participants. Faculty self-selected if they had interest in participating in the study based on their perceptions and experiences of workplace cyberbullying in higher education institutions. If faculty members expressed interest in participating in the study, they received a description of the research study via email with the information necessary regarding the study. Participants were asked to confirm interest by contacting one of the researchers and by signing the informed consent document via email or face-to-face. To assess participants’ cyberbullying experiences, they were asked to discuss their specific cyberbullying experiences in performing duties such as teaching, research, and service in their academic job. The research team led semi-structured interviews via Zoom, which were audio–video recorded using the meeting application’s recording feature. Interview questions are listed in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Two of the eight interview questions specifically addressed topics related to disempowerment theory. Specifically, question 5 of the interview protocol asked participants to consider why cyberbullying happens to faculty and why the faculty member, herself/himself, believed that they had been targeted. Based on participants’ answers, the researchers asked follow-up questions related to power dynamics and possible motivations for the abuser to engage in cyberbullying. Question 6 asked participants to reflect on how the COVID-19 pandemic had changed the nature of cyberbullying attacks against faculty. While not directly stated to participants to skew participants’ responses, one intent behind this question was for participants to consider how the COVID-19 pandemic, a natural disaster which left countless people feeling helpless, physically ill, and disempowered, might have influenced the cyberbullying of faculty members. Whenever possible, at least two researchers conducted the interviews. Having multiple researchers attend each interview supported the thematic analysis of the interviews, as it allowed for researchers to compare notes and agree upon central themes. Before each interview, participants were asked if they felt comfortable being interviewed by multiple interviewers or if they preferred to only be interviewed by the primary researcher. Following each interview, the researchers who conducted the interview met among themselves to debrief and compare notes. Each participant was assigned a code to preserve anonymity, and each interview lasted approximately 1 h. Interviews were transcribed and reviewed so that researchers could identify central themes across the interviews and descriptive tables were developed from the interview data.

Interview questions

Data Analysis

After researchers performed interviews, researchers transcribed the interviews. The data analysis process followed five steps: (1) prepare and organize data, (2) review and explore data, (3) create initial codes, (4) review the codes, and (5) present the themes in a cohesive manner. The first step required the primary researcher to engage in data by creating interview transcripts and reviewing each interview word for word. Next, the primary researcher examined transcripts to explore the data. From the review of transcripts, the primary researcher identified macro-level themes for each interview question. Next, the primary researcher gave the other research team members interview transcripts and a table indicating the cumulative frequency of macro-level themes across the interviews. Each researcher team member individually reviewed the transcripts and considered micro-level theme interpretations. The research team members then met as a group to review the macro-level and micro-level themes. The research team came to a consensus on macro- and micro-level themes, primarily through redefining, associating, or consolidating identified concepts (Alhojailan, 2012 ). As a result, the research team agreed upon three macro-level themes (Table ​ (Table3) 3 ) and several micro-level question themes (Tables ​ (Tables4, 4 , ​ ,5, 5 , ​ ,6, 6 , and ​ and7). 7 ). The three macro-level themes were identified when a clear theme was evident across several interviews (indicated by having a high percentage of participants corroborating the same theme). Through this process, the researchers constructed a collaborative meaning of the participants’ experiences as faculty victims of cyberbullying, particularly within the context of disempowerment theory. Incorporating disempowerment theory to determine meaning of participants’ responses and to explain participants’ responses within a theoretical framework allowed the researchers to develop a greater understanding of the given phenomenon. Inter-theme reliability was tested for the thematic analysis to ensure the themes’ interpretation was maintained between coders (Crabtree & Miller, 1999 ). Any discrepancies between coders and researchers were discussed until a consensus was reached and 100% inter-coder reliability was achieved.

Overall study themes

Reasons cyberbullying happens to faculty

Cyberbullying during the pandemic

Barriers to reporting cyberbullying

Bystanders not reporting cyberbullying instances

There were three consistent themes identified across the faculty interviews. First, victims perceived that anonymity and power dynamics significantly influenced cyberbullying incidents. Second, faculty believed that the pandemic led to an increase in cyberbullying against faculty. Third, faculty felt particularly vulnerable to cyberbullying incidents because their universities lacked clear cyberbullying policies and procedures to support faculty victims of cyberbullying. The thematic findings were developed through intense review of participant interview data. The data was examined for key words and similar experiences to support identification of themes.

Anonymity, Power Dynamics, and Cyberbullying

One common theme that addressed RQ1 (factors explaining cyberbullying perpetration against faculty) across many of the interviews was the relationship between anonymity (subtheme 1) and power dynamics (subtheme 2) with cyberbullying. To begin, many participants viewed the aggressor’s perceived sense of anonymity online as a contributing factor to cyberbullying incidents. When asked, “ Why do you think cyberbullying happens to faculty ,” more than a quarter of participants (28% or 7 participants) stated that anonymity was a significant reason for cyberbullying. One participant explained that anonymity provides the cyberbullying perpetrator protection, allowing the cyberbully to “hide behind a computer and say…inappropriate things and things they wouldn’t say face-to-face.” Another participant reiterated this viewpoint: “I think that sort of anonymity or that sense of it’s easier to send this kind of rude email to someone versus saying that to their face. I’ve received [that] from students, for instance.” Descriptive frequency analysis was also used, which pointed to other reasons for why cyberbullying occurs to faculty including power (the second most common explanation with 24% of participants associating cyberbullying with the abuser’s quest for power), blaming others, technological availability, politics, grade manipulation, and lack of communication skills, among others listed in Table ​ Table4. 4 . Several of those reasons—most notably exerting power and attempting to manipulate professors’ grading—directly tie to disempowerment theory, a topic which will be elaborated upon in the “ Discussion ” section of this paper.

Cyberbullying of Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic

A major theme derived from RQ2 (cyberbullying changes during the COVID-19 pandemic) highlighted that most participants believed that the COVID-19 pandemic created unique conditions for cyberbullying incidents. In response to the question, “ Do you think cyberbullying for faculty has changed at all during the pandemic ,” four-fifths of participants, twenty participants out of twenty-five, felt that cyberbullying had changed during the pandemic. Of the 80% of participants that perceived cyberbullying had changed during the pandemic, nearly half discussed how cyberbullying had increased during the pandemic. Five participants identified that added stress was a factor for increased cyberbullying. As one participant described, cyberbullying had changed “just based on the additional stresses that people have been dealing with through the pandemic…[This] may not be necessarily anything to do with the faculty member, but maybe just life stresses.” Several participants (12%) believed that increased technology usage had spurred cyberbullying during the pandemic. A participant noted, “Everything is more online, so I think the opportunity is [there] for someone to encounter cyber bullying.” Finally, three participants believed social dissention during the pandemic factored into increases in cyberbullying. As one participant explained, cyberbullying changed because of “the situation that we’ve been brought throughout the pandemic, not necessarily because of COVID, but because of everything that happened through COVID, you know, with the riots and all the unrest that happened.” Descriptive frequency analysis also pointed to those changes that occurred from compounding issues, distance communication, more online interaction, exhaustion, and burnout (see Table ​ Table5). 5 ). As will be addressed in the “ Discussion ” section of the article, participants’ attributing the heightened levels of workplace cyberbullying against faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic to increased stress, social unrest, exhaustion, and burnout further justify the application of disempowerment theory as an analytical tool.

Faculty Vulnerability and a Lack of Institutional Support

A central theme based on RQ3 (challenges of cyberbullying on faculty) from the interviews included many participants’ feelings of vulnerability as faculty (subtheme 1) and dissatisfaction with their institutions’ handling of cyberbullying (subtheme 2). Many participants mentioned faculty’s vulnerability to cyberbullying due to the public nature of their positions and the accessibility to professors through social media. Five faculty participants (20% of all participants) specifically recommended that faculty be cautious with sharing information on social media. One participant provided the following admonition: “Don’t be on social media. I think that is one thing. I just feel like a lot of times when you put everything that is important to you [online] that you’re vulnerable…It does give a person who could harm you or who wants to bully you or to cause you distress that ammunition.” Interestingly, some participants felt particularly powerless to protect themselves from cyberbullying. Two quotes from different participants demonstrate these faculty members’ sense of incapacitation: “I really don’t think we can [prevent cyberbullying]. I think we’re pretty vulnerable. I mean, you’ve got different types of students from different backgrounds” (participant 21). A second participant stated “I really don’t know how you could protect yourself against it [cyberbullying], because how do you stop somebody from bullying you? Right?” (participant 19).

Other faculty felt reporting cyberbullying to their institutions led to negative professional repercussions. In terms of their individual experiences as cyberbullying victims, four of the twenty-five participants (16% of all participants) directly referred to the retaliation that professors could receive for reporting cyberbullying. One participant described choosing to not report the cyberbullying incident out of fear of being further targeted by the cyberbully—an administrator—in retaliation for reporting: “I didn’t want to report it because I didn’t want, you know, him to give me bad feedback on my evaluation.” Another participant detailed specific retribution that she received due to reporting cyberbullying: “Well, as a result of me reporting it, he reported me to the ombudsman person. And so, then I had to meet with that individual about my quote, unquote treatment of him, and I was not willing to go into detail with her on anything.” The connection between “disempowerment” theory and acts of retribution will be detailed in the “ Discussion ” section of the paper.

Related to many faculty’s feelings of vulnerability to cyberbullying were several faculty’s perception that higher education institutions failed to adequately respond to cyberbullying. When participants were asked, “What are the barriers to reporting cyberbullying to the authorities at your institution?” 28%, or seven out of twenty-five participants stated that they were unaware of a clear cyberbullying policy at their university and, without a policy, steps for reporting were difficult to identify. One participant described how there had never been clear guidance in her institution for how to address cyberbullying, while another participant stated that institutions needed a clear policy “…for people to know where to go and how to do it [report cyberbullying], knowing what the processes are, being very clear about those processes, and making it very accessible and easy to do.” From the descriptive statistical analysis, other barriers for reporting cyberbullying included lack of trust, fear, reporting issues, intimidation, and shame (see Table ​ Table6 6 ).

On a related question involving faculty challenges, “ What do you think might be the reason bystanders choose to not report cyberbullying instances ,” four participants (16%) felt that institutions would not address cyberbullying effectively. One participant depicted her lack of confidence in her institution’s ability in blunt terms: “I will say, in my instance…I find that nothing will come from it. It’ll just be filed away under. ‘OK. We’ll just keep an eye on it.’” Another professor detailed both a lack of faith in their institution’s ability to handle the solution as well as a suspicion of retribution for reporting cyber victimization as an outside bystander observing the cyberbullying: “Again, not trusting the system. I’ve seen [that] you’re told that something’s anonymous, but I don’t trust that.” Table ​ Table7 7 provides other reasons faculty believed bystanders failed to report observing cyberbullying (e.g., faculty believing that the cyberbullying did not affect them personally, lack of awareness, fear, concerns about retaliation, etc.).

Apart from these three central themes, the researchers concluded that cyberbullying is a nuanced experience with varied perceptions. Through the interviews, it was clear that cyberbullying can be clinically defined, but that the individuals’ perception of what designates cyberbullying and of their individual experiences with cyberbullying varied. Some faculty members felt the experience of cyberbullying was humorous, they never felt helpless, and they perceived all bullying events as stemming from issues internalized by the bully. While other faculty described their cyberbullying experiences as hopeless, scary, and without potential for resolve. One variation between these two extremes within the group was the victims’ perception of their own ability to bring about a resolution. The faculty that believed they could resolve the issue or that they, through their own power, had resolved it, perceived the cyberbullying attack as less concerning. The faculty that believed their cyberbullying experiences could not be resolved and that they had no administrative support were more fearful for their lives and careers.

The present study documents the lived experiences of 25 faculty who experienced cyberbullying in the university workplace. Participants shared a range of perspectives concerning the cyberbullying incident’s effect on their work life and emotional health. While each faculty’s experiences as a victim of cyberbullying proved unique, the researchers identified three consistent themes through the collective interview process. First, anonymity of the bully is a significant contributor to the rise of cyberbullying as well as the bully’s desire to reassert power. Second, the challenges that arose from the global COVID-19 pandemic spurred increases of cyberbullying against academic faculty. Third, faculty do not perceive that there are clear cyberbullying policies and procedures in place at their universities to support faculty.

As discussed earlier, several participants in the present study believed that the cyberbullying events they had experienced would not occur in a face-to-face environment. The victims perceived that their cyberbullies felt empowered to voice discourteous comments, since the bullies believed they were impervious to repercussions through operating behind the veil of a computer screen and/or a screen name. Cyberbullying literature supports this finding. Wildermuth and Davis ( 2012 ) conclude that the internet provides many aggressors with a perception that they can commit acts of cyberaggression with impunity. The authors explain that the asynchronous nature of many electronic forms of communication and the lack of social cues/context cause many abusers to feel that their communication has less of a “real” effect on victims. Disempowerment theory suggests that anonymity can provide a sense of power over victims given bullies’ perceptions of protection behind a computer screen (Kane & Montgomery, 1998 ). Additionally, the theory that the relative anonymity of the internet influences cyberbullying is further evidenced by the work of Cuevas ( 2018 ) and Lloro-Bidart ( 2018 ), two professors who documented their separate, individual experiences with cyberbullying. Whereas cyber vigilantes targeted Cuevas ( 2018 ), a professor in Georgia, for his politically themed social media posts, Lloro-Bidart ( 2018 ), a Californian academic, received verbal assaults for her published, scholarly work related to ecofeminism. In both cases, most of the vitriolic messages directed at the victims originated from non-university affiliated individuals who absconded their identities on the internet.

Moreover, the fact that 24% of participants cited power as a motivation for cyberbullying against faculty can be explained by disempowerment theory. According to McKenry et al. ( 2006 ), disempowerment theory contends that violence and aggression are an aggressor’s reaction to both real and perceived challenges; the aggressor responds to these challenges by attempting to possess or control others (McKenry et al., 2006 ). Students, staff, faculty, and/or members of the general public that engage in cybervictimization against professors may feel threatened by the professor, and therefore, attempt to reacquire power dynamics through virtual aggression. Furthermore, several participants attributed cyberbullying to students’ attempts to manipulate grading, which also ties to disempowerment theory. Students may feel insecure about their lack of control over professors’ grading, an important factor in students’ ability to graduate and seek future employment, and, as a result, choose to cyberbully in hopes of redistributing power dynamics to students’ advantage. A second central theme in the qualitative interviews involved numerous participants’ contentions that the pandemic fueled cyberbullying. When researchers asked participants why they believed the pandemic had contributed to increases in cyberbullying attacks against faculty, participants had two common explanations. Some participants attributed the rise in cyberbullying to courses moving online during the pandemic. With more courses being held entirely online, online interactions became the predominant form of communication. According to faculty that held this view, bullying that might have occurred face-to-face in a brick-and-mortar classroom was now occurring online in the virtual classroom. A second common explanation for the increases in cyberbullying against faculty among participants was the belief that the compounded challenges occurring during the pandemic—physical health risks, mental health concerns amid increased social isolation, and the political and economic upheaval that resulted—caused increased emotional stress and anger, leading to more acts of cyberaggression. This perception corresponds with Barlett and collaborator’s ( 2021 ) findings that during the pandemic, US adults, as a demographic group, perpetrated more acts of cyberbullying compared to pre-pandemic levels. The researchers further documented that adults were more likely to positively perceive acts of cyber-aggression during the pandemic (Barlett et al., 2021 ). Additionally, from the perspective of disempowerment theory, added stress caused by the uncertainty and devastation caused by the pandemic may have led some students, staff, faculty, and members of the general public to attempt to recapture control over their lives and their situation by cyberbullying college professors. At the same time, the pandemic empowered long-distance bullies who used computer technology to attack faculty without any consequences (Kane & Montgomery, 1998 ). On the receiving end of the cyberaggression, professors, overwhelmed by increased virtual responsibilities during the pandemic, felt disempowered to defend themselves against the digital aggressions. A third common theme that participants discussed was faculty’s lack of awareness of university cyberbullying policies and limited confidence in their universities to respond to cyberbullying. Research conducted by Minor et al. ( 2013 ) and Cassidy et al. ( 2017 ) documented similar findings. In Minor et al.s’ ( 2013 ) study of faculty experiences at a US university with all-online classes, nearly two-thirds of faculty participants believed that there were not adequate support mechanisms for faculty experiencing cyberbullying. Minor et al. ( 2013 ) cited specific faculty concerns such as a lack of knowledge on how to officially report cyberbullying and a distrust of administrators’ ability to effectively resolve cyberbullying incidents. Cassidy et al. ( 2017 ), likewise, found that among Canadian faculty who participated in their study, most participants held negative perceptions of the level of assistance that they received from administrators and colleagues after the faculty participants experienced cyberbullying. What is more, without knowledge and resources to deter cyberbullying, power imbalances between faculty and their aggressors can widen, perpetuating ongoing cyberbullying behaviors in higher education (Kituyi, 2021 ). In a similar vein, the decision of several participants in the study to not report cyberbullying incidents out of a fear of retaliation relates to disempowerment theory. Indeed, considering the tenets of disempowerment theory, these participants’ fear of retaliation may be well-founded. Under the framework of disempowerment theory, reporting a cyberbully to authorities would further threaten the bully’s power and increase the bully’s feelings of insecurity; this could feasibly inspire the cyberbully to engage in further violence as retribution.

In the present study, perhaps because of participants’ limited awareness of university policies that dealt with cyber-aggression, several participants advocated for the adoption of new university cyberbullying policies. One university policy that faculty suggested included the university formally defining cyberbullying. This suggestion corresponds with guidelines from Washington et al. ( 2015 ) that recommend that universities create a cyber code of conduct that specifically outlines appropriate and inappropriate online conduct. Faculty participants of the current study also advocated for universities to establish specific initiatives to prevent cyberbullying. One initiative could be the creation of what Cassidy et al. ( 2014 ) describe as anonymous cyberbullying reporting systems on college campuses, which would allow both students and faculty to report cyberbullying without fear of further retaliation from the bully.

Universities could also consider creating specific university committees to address cyberbullying. These committees might resemble the cyberbullying awareness organizations composed of both faculty, staff, and students, recommended by Weiss ( 2020 ) or the cyberbullying action committees proposed by Smith et al. ( 2014 ) that would assign a particular administrator to oversee dealing with all cyberbullying incidents. Other preventative strategies could include Smith et al.s’ ( 2014 ) recommendation for mandatory orientation training on cyberbullying for students and faculty. The orientation could describe the forms of cyberbullying common on college campuses and how to address aggressive behavior online in appropriate ways (Smith et al., 2014 ).

Implications

This study has implications for a broad array of university stakeholders, namely, university faculty, university administrators, and students. Understanding faculty’s diverse definitions of cyberbullying and experiences with cyberbullying can help university leaders respond to cyberbullying, thus creating positive, academic environments free from incivilities and aggressions. Since the study features participants from diverse regions with several types of tenure-track status, the study further documents the prevalence of workplace cyberbullying occurring in universities across the USA among various faculty groups. Finally, the study’s findings provide college faculty and administrators with the challenges or barriers of addressing cyberbullying. As described earlier in the previous section, ways to reduce (and hopefully, eventually eliminate) cyberbullying include establishing an institutional definition of cyberbullying and providing a means to anonymously report cyberbullying incidents. Other recommendations detailed earlier feature the forming of committees composed of diverse stakeholders to address cyberbullying and mandatory orientation on cyberbullying for students, staff, and faculty. The present article’s authors further propose the sponsorship of campus-wide awareness campaigns and workshops in addition to a mandatory cyberbullying orientation for all students, staff, and faculty. The authors also suggest that higher education institutions design or purchase anti-cyberbullying software that can be installed on campus computers and/or virtual networks.

Limitations and Future Research

Twenty-five university faculty members shared their perspective and their experiences regarding cyberbullying in their work environments. Their experiences are compelling and powerful; however, it is also important to remember that cyberbullying events are nuanced and complicated. The data in this study relies on singular experiences and perspectives. It would be valuable to have a phenomenological case study where several faculty members shared their experiences and perspectives of a particular cyberbullying event so that researchers would have multiple perspectives of a singular episode. Likewise, since the researchers, themselves, are university faculty who bring to the table their own workplace experiences, the researchers could have interpreted interview data based on their own, preconceived notions. Since the validity of qualitative research findings can be limited because of the subjective nature of researchers playing an active role in interpreting data, some possible researcher bias could be a limitation of the present study (Babbie, 2005 ). Also, only descriptive statistics were used in this study. Future researchers may consider using surveys and quantitative measures to identify relationships among variables relevant to this study. This could help provide explanatory data rather than simply descriptive data (Babbie, 2005 ). Finally, the sampling procedure featured purposive sampling, which is a form of non-randomized/non-probability sampling (Babbie, 2005 ). Compared to randomized probability sampling, non-probability sampling could yield sampling bias and provides less generalizability to the population of US faculty members as a whole (Bhattacherjee, 2012 ). Thus, the results of the present study may prove less representative of the general US faculty population compared to studies that employ probability sampling. One illustrative example of this is that 22 of the 25 participants were from Texas. Ideally, in future research studies, randomized, probability sampling should be employed, especially since a more randomized sample of participants may yield more diverse perspectives. Thus, future studies that employ probability sampling may prove more representative of faculty experiences across the USA, especially since cyberbullying policies differ across states and universities.

Conclusions

While bullying has occurred since the beginning of time, cyberbullying is a recent phenomenon that has evolved with the growth of the internet. With only three to four decades of cyberbullying accounts, the literature regarding cyberbullying is in its preliminary stages. Researchers are seeking to understand the cyberbullying experience from both the victim and perpetrator’s viewpoint. This study contributes to the growing body of literature by further illuminating the experiences and perspectives of university faculty who have been victims of cyberbullying. The present study affirms previous research findings on the link between increased online communications in the academic workplace and acts of cyberbullying against faculty. The research study’s findings that faculty are largely unaware of their university’s policies on cyberbullying and that faculty believe universities fail to adequately respond to cyberbullying incidents, likewise, echo findings from earlier studies. However, as the extant literature has yet to comprehensively explore workplace cyberbullying of college and university faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic, the present study contributes much to the literature. The study’s findings demonstrate that the pandemic has spurred heightened levels of workplace cyberbullying against faculty, which the study’s faculty participants attribute to increased levels of electronic communications, shifts toward virtual work during the pandemic, and the added stress caused by the spread of a devastating illness that, likewise, caused significant emotional, political, and economic disruptions.

Finally, the present study provides several practical solutions to prevent cyberbullying against faculty. As illustrated in previous research as well as within the present study’s findings, faculty desire clear cyberbullying policies and procedures from their institutions. Institutions of higher education can adopt proactive policies such as establishing an institutional definition of cyberbullying, cyberbullying committees, anonymous reporting mechanisms, and mandatory training on cyberbullying. Universities could also employ software in system computers and networks that directly restrict cyberbullying behaviors. While cyberbullying is a current issue in many universities, the university stakeholders are uniquely positioned to explore, understand, and create solutions to minimize cyberbullying in academia. The first step begins with awareness, and this study hopes to have provided some beneficial illumination of faculty’s unique experiences as cyberbullying victims.

Author Contribution

Jillian Yarbrough (first full draft), Katelynn Sell (contributed with analysis/proofing), Adam Weiss (contributed with discussion/proofing), Leslie Ramos Salazar (contributed with lit/proofing).

Data Availability

Declarations.

The authors declare no competing interests.

• Alhojailan MI. Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences. 2012; 1 (1):39–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alipan A, Skues J, Theiler S. “They will find another way to hurt you”: Emerging adults’ perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Emerging Adulthood (thousand Oaks, CA) 2021; 9 (1):22–34. doi: 10.1177/2167696818816896. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer J. Power and male violence. In: Archer J, editor. Male violence. Routledge; 1994. pp. 310–332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (3rd Ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
• Barlett, C., Simmers, M., Roth, B., & Gentile, D. (2021). Comparing cyberbullying prevalence and process before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161 (4), 408–418 [ PubMed ]
• Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices . University of South Florida Scholar Commons. https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/79
• Blizard, L. (2018). Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying: The impact of faculty. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.). Cyberbullying at university in international contexts . Routledge. 10.4329/9781315189406
• Bosco S, Robles G, Stephenson R, Starks R. Relationship power and intimate partner violence in sexual minority male couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2020; 37 :1–2. doi: 10.1177/0886260520916271. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calvete O, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., & Padilla, P. Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010; 26 (5):1128–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014). The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbullying of university faculty and teaching personnel. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60 (2), 279–299. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062719
• Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2016). Gender differences and cyberbullying towards faculty members in higher education. Cyberbullying Across the Globe , 79–98.
• Cassidy W, Faucher C, Jackson M. Adversity in university: Cyberbullying and its impacts on students, faculty and administrators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017; 14 (8):888. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080888. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Celik, S., Atak, H., Ergunzen, A. (2012). The effect of personality on cyber bullying among university students in Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49 , 129–150. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1059925
• Chapel M, Casey D, De La Cruz C, Ferrell J, Forman J, Lipkin R, Newsham M, Choi, & Park, M. Effects of nursing organisational culture on face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the workplace. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2019; 28 (13–14):2577–2588. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14843. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çimke, & Cerit, E. Social media addiction, cyberbullying and cyber victimization of university students. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing. 2021; 35 (5):499–503. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2021.07.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clemmons A, Lebovitz L, Fulford M, Greene K, Franks A, Branan T, Plake KI. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faculty at research-intensive United States schools/colleges of pharmacy. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2022; 14 (2):145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2021.11.018. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook, S. (2021). Cyberbullying facts and statistics for 2018–2021. Comparitech. https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/cyberbullying-statistics/
• Coyne F, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C., Best, L., & Kwok, O. Understanding the relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain and job satisfaction: A disempowerment approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2016; 28 (7):945–972. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1116454. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research . Sage Publications.
• Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the five approaches. SAGE Publications Inc; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuevas, J. (2018). A new reality? The far right’s use of cyber harassment against academics. American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/article/new-reality-far-rightsuse-cyberharassment-against-academics#.XlbiIyhKiUl
• D’Cruz P, Noronha E. Target experiences of workplace bullying on online labour markets: Uncovering the nuances of resilience. Employee Relations. 2018; 40 (1):139–154. doi: 10.1108/ER-09-2016-0171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Cruz P, Noronha E. Abuse on online labour markets: Targets’ coping, power and control. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2018; 13 (1):53–78. doi: 10.1108/QROM-10-2016-1426. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duggan, M. (2014). Part 1: Experiencing online harassment. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/10/22/part-1-experiencing-online-harassment/
• Eyuboglu M, Eyuboglu D, Pala SC, Oktar D, Demirtas Z, Arslantas D, Unsal A. Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, the effect on mental health problems and self-harm behavior. Psychiatry Research. 2021; 297 :113730–113730. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113730. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farley S, Coyne I, Sprigg C, Axtell C, Subramanian G. Exploring the impact of workplace cyberbullying on trainee doctors. Medical Education. 2015; 49 :436–443. doi: 10.1111/medu.12666. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students: Gendered experiences, impacts and perspectives. Education Research International. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2014/698545/
• Fogg W, C., Trinka, M., Campbell, R., Thomson, A., Merritt, L., Tietze, M., & Prior, M. Transitioning from direct care to virtual clinical experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2020; 36 (6):685–691. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.09.012. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollis, L. (2021). High-tech harassment: A chi-squared confirmation that workplace cyberbullying disproportionally affects people of color and the LGBQ community in higher education . Routledge.
• Hutson K, S., & Militello, L. K. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2018; 15 (1):72–79. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12257. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kane K, Montomery K. A framework for understanding empowerment in organizations. Human Resource Management. 1998; 37 (1):263–275. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199823/24)37:3/4<263::AID-HRM8>3.0.CO;2-U. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karthikeyan, K. (2020). Workplace cyberbullying and its impact on productivity. In book: Handbook of research on cyberbullying and online harassment in the workplace (pp.18). Hershey: IGI Global.
• Keashlly L, Neumann JH. Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 2010; 32 (1):48–70. doi: 10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khine A, Saw Y, Htut Z, Khaing C, Soe H, Swe K, Thike T, Htet H, Saw T, Cho S, Kariya T, Yamamoto E, Hamajima N. Assessing risk factors and impact of cyberbullying victimization among university students in Myanmar: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15 (1):e0227051–e0227051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227051. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kourgiantakis Hu, R., Ramsundarsingh, S., Lung, Y., & West, K. J. Teaching note-virtual practice Fridays: Responding to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the field and classroom. Journal of Social Work Education. 2021; 57 (sup1):111–119. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2021.1932651. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Y, Choi JS. Individual and organizational factors influencing workplace cyberbullying of nurses: A cross-sectional study. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2021; 23 (1):715–722. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12858. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kituyi, S. (2021). Cyberbullying and employee productivity of insurance companies in Kenya [master’s thesis, University of Nairobi]. University of Nairobi. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/160968
• Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W. & Feinn, R.S. (2022). Is cyberbullying an extension of traditional bullying or a unique phenomenon? A longitudinal investigation among college students. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention, 4 (4). 10.1007/s42380-022-00154-6
• Kowalski R, Toth A, Morgan M. Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. Journal of Soc Psychology. 2018; 158 (1):64–81. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwong-Lai Poon, M. (2011). Beyond good and evil: The social construction of violence in intimate gay relationships in Ristock, J. 2011 Introduction: Intimate partner violence in LGBTQ lives Routledge.
• Li C, Holt T, Bossler A, May D. Examining the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control-cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior. 2016; 37 (2):126–138. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloro-Bidart T. An ecofeminist account of cyberbullying: Implications for environmental and social justice scholar-educator-activists. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2018; 49 (4):276–285. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2017.1400513. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd GM, Sailor JL, Carney W. A phenomenological study of post-divorce adjustment in midlife. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2014; 55 :441–450. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2014.931757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loh J, Snyman R. The tangled web: Consequences of workplace cyberbullying in adult male and female employees. Gender in Management: An International Journal. 2020; 35 (6):1754–2413. doi: 10.1108/GM-12-2019-0242. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makalesi A, Esen UB, Esen FS. The effects of cyberbullying on work engagement and burnout levels of employees. Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2022; 11 (1):45–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenry, P., Serovich, J., Mason, T., & Mosack, K.(2006). Perpetration of gay and lesbian partner violence: A disempowerment perspective. Journal of Family Violence, 21 (4), 233–243.
• Mendoza J. The impact of minority stress on gay male partner abuse’ in Ristock, J. (2011) ‘Introduction: Intimate partner violence in LGBTQ lives. Routledge; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meriläinen M, Sinkkonen H, Puhakka H, Käyhkö K. Bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel. Policy Futures in Education. 2016; 14 (6):617–634. doi: 10.1177/1478210316639417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meter D, Budziszewski R, Phillips A, Beckert T. A qualitative exploration of college students’ perceptions of cyberbullying. TechTrends. 2021; 65 (4):464–472. doi: 10.1007/s11528-021-00605-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minor, M., Smith, G., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 3 (1), 15–29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1118457
• Molluzzo, J. & Lawler, J. (2012). A comprehensive survey on cyberbullying perception at a major metropolitan university-faculty perspectives. Information Systems Education Journal, 11 (3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1145042.pdf
• Molluzzo, J. & Lawler, J. (2014). A comparison of faculty and student perceptions of cyberbullying. Information Systems Education Journal, 12 (2). Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140739.pdf .
• Molluzzo, J., Lawler, J., & Manneh, J. (2013). A comprehensive survey on cyberbullying perceptions at a major metropolitan university - Faculty perspectives. Information Systems Education Journal, 11 (3), 15–34. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145042
• Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. Sage; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhonen T, Jönsson S, Bäckström M. Consequences of cyberbullying behaviour in working life. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2017; 10 :376–390. doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-10-2016-0075. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolaou. Bullying, cyberbullying, and youth health behaviors. Kyklos (basel) 2021 doi: 10.1111/kykl.12286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Donnell S, MacIntosh J, Wuest J. A theoretical understanding of sickness absence among women who have experienced workplace bullying. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 (4):439–452. doi: 10.1177/1049732310361242. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park, M., & Choi, J. (2018). Effects of workplace cyberbullying on nurses’ symptom experience and turnover intention. Journal of Nursing Management, 27 (1), 1108–1115. 10.1111/jonm.12779 [ PubMed ]
• Park, M., Golden, K. J., Vizcaino-Vickers, S., Jidong, D., & Raj, S. (2021). Sociocultural values, attitudes and risk factors associated with adolescent cyberbullying in East Asia: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology , 15 (1). 10.5817/CP2021-1-5
• Patchin, & Hinduja, S. Cyberbullying and self-esteem. The Journal of School Health. 2010; 80 (12):614–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piotrowski, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: A research-based content analysis of the psychological literature. Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 38 (1), 13–19. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ990744
• Qaisar, S., Jalil, A., Khawaja, K., & Khan, A. R. (2020). City University Research Journal, 10 (4), 520–538. http://cusitjournals.com/index.php/CURJ
• Saladino V, Eleuteri S, Verrastro V, Petruccelli F. Perception of cyberbullying in adolescence: A brief evaluation among Italian students. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11 :607225–607225. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607225. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sansone, R. A., & Sansone, L. A. (2015). Workplace bullying: A tale of adverse consequences. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience ,  12 (1–2), 32–37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382139/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Scheff, S. (2019). Adult cyberbullying is more common than you think. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame-nation/201911/adult-cyberbullying-is-more-common-you-think#:~:text=A%20mental%20health%20advocate%20says%20adults%20can%20be,participants%20had%20ever%20been%20a%20target%20of%20cyberbullying .
• Smith G, Minor M, Brashen H. Cyberbullying in higher education: Implications and solutions. Journal of Educational Research and Practice. 2014; 4 (1):50–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsang, K. K., & Liu, D. (2016). Teacher demoralization, disempowerment and school administration. Qualitative Research in Education, 5 (2), 200–225. 10.17583/qre.2016.1883
• Varghese, & Pistole, M. College student cyberbullying: Self-esteem, depression, loneliness, and attachment. Journal of College Counseling. 2017; 20 (1):7–21. doi: 10.1002/jocc.12055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vranjes B, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. The dark side of working online: Towards a definition and an emotion reaction model of workplace cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 69 :324–334. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Washington E, Misawa M, Rowland M. An overview of cyberbullying in higher education. Adult Learning. 2015; 26 (1):21–27. doi: 10.1177/1045159514558412. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss, A. (2020). Professor and victim: Cyberbullying targeting professors in the higher education workplace. In Ramos Salazar, L. (Ed.). Handbook of research on cyberbullying and online harassment in the workplace . IGI Global.
• Whittaker, & Kowalski, R. M. Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence. 2015; 14 (1):11–29. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.949377. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wildermuth, S., & Davis, C. B. (2012). Flaming the faculty: Exploring root causes, consequences, and potential remedies to the problem of instructor-focused uncivil online student discourse in higher education. In L. A. Wankel & C. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior in higher education: Cutting-edge technologies in higher education (pp. 379–404). Emerald. 10.1108/S2044-9968(2012)0000005020
• Woudstra, M. H., Rensburg, E. J., Visser, M., & Jordaan, J. (2018). Learner-to-teacher bullying as a potential factor influencing teachers’ mental health. (1), 1–10. South African Journal of Education, 38 . 10.15700/saje.v38n1a1358
• Xu, Y., & Trzaskawka, P. (2021). Towards descriptive adequacy of cyberbullying: Interdisciplinary studies on features, cases and legislative concerns of cyberbullying. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law = Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique , 34 (4), 929–943. 10.1007/s11196-021-09856-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]

Bullying in higher education: an endemic problem?

• Open access
• Published: 30 June 2023
• Volume 29 , pages 123–137, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Malcolm Tight   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3379-8613 1  

12k Accesses

12 Citations

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We may think that bullying is a childish behaviour that is left behind on finishing school, or that universities and colleges are too cultured and intellectual as institutions to have room for such behaviour, but these hopes are far from the truth. The research evidence shows that bullying of all kinds is rife in higher education. Indeed, it seems likely that the peculiar nature of higher education actively encourages particular kinds of bullying. This article provides a review of the research on bullying in higher education, considering what this shows about its meaning, extent and nature, and reviews the issues that have been identified and possible solutions to them. It concludes that, while there is much that higher education institutions need to do to respond effectively to bullying, revisiting their traditions and underlying purposes should support them in doing so.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bullying by Teachers Towards Students—a Scoping Review

Recent Bullying Trends in Japanese Schools: Why Methods of Control Fail

Bullying in Schools: Rates, Correlates and Impact on Mental Health

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

It would be nice to think that bullying was a childish behaviour that we left behind on finishing school, or that universities and colleges were too cultured and intellectual as institutions to have room for such behaviour, but these hopes are far from the truth. Even though this topic has only attracted the attention of higher education researchers relatively recently, having picked it up from research into bullying in schools and workplaces, the research evidence shows that bullying of all kinds is rife in higher education. Indeed, it seems likely that the peculiar nature of higher education actively encourages particular kinds of bullying.

The purpose of this article is to explore and examine the research evidence to see what it reveals about the extent and nature of bullying in higher education, the wider issues that this raises, and the possible solutions that have been put forward, trialled and evaluated. The article aims to provide a synopsis of the state of play regarding bullying in higher education at the time of writing – 2023 – which should prove useful to both future researchers and policy-makers in assessing whether and what progress has been made.

As this article presents a systematic review of the research literature on bullying in higher education, it is not organised in a typical or conventional fashion. The next section outlines the methodological approach taken. It is followed by sections that consider the meaning of bullying, the particular context of higher education, the extent of bullying in higher education, and its varied nature. The issues and possible solutions raised in the literature are then discussed, before some conclusions are reached.

Methodology

Methodologically, the article makes use of the techniques of systematic review (Jesson et al., 2011 ; Tight, 2021 ; Torgerson, 2003 ), an approach that seeks to identify, analyse and synthesize all of the research that has been published on a particular topic – in this case, bullying in higher education. In practice, of course, some limits have to be set on the scope of a systematic review, most notably in terms of the language of publication (in this case confined to English), the date of publication and the accessibility of published articles (all available articles, books and other publications identified were examined).

Databases – Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science – were searched using keywords – ‘bullying’, ‘higher education’, ‘university’, ‘college’ and related terms—to identify potentially relevant articles, books and reports that had been published on the topic. Those identified were then accessed (mostly through downloads) and examined, and retained for further analysis if they proved to be relevant. The reference lists in the articles and reports were checked for other potentially relevant sources to follow up that had not been initially identified.

These searches reveal an upswelling of interest in bullying in higher education over the last 20 years. For example, a search carried out on Scopus on 22/6/23 identified 698 articles with the words ‘bullying’, ‘higher’ and ‘education’ in their titles, abstracts or keywords, 48 of which had those three words in their titles, indicating a likely focus on the topic of interest. Similar searches using ‘bullying’ and ‘university’ identified 1361 (113) articles, while ‘bullying’ and ‘college’ found 593 (57) articles. This is a substantial and growing body of literature.

The interest in researching bullying in higher education, like the incidence of bullying, is also global in nature. While the focus on English language publications meant that the articles identified were mainly from English-speaking countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, articles were also found from researchers based in countries on all continents. Within Europe, researchers from Finland (e.g. Björklund et al., 2010 ; Malik & Björkqvist, 2019 ; Meriläinen et al., 2016 ; Oksanen et al., 2022 ; Pörhölä et al., 2020 ) and Greece (e.g. Giovaziolas & Malikiosi-Loizos, 2016 ; Kokkinos et al., 2016 ; Spanou et al., 2020 ) have shown a strong interest in the topic. Other countries where bullying in higher education has been the subject of research include China (Su et al., 2022 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ), India (Kaur & Kaur, 2023 ; Sinha & Bondestam, 2022 ), Pakistan (Ahmed et al., 2022 ), South Africa (Badenhorst & Botha, 2022 ), Spain (Yubero et al., 2023 ), Turkey (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011 ) and the United Arab Emirates (Al-Damarki et al., 2022 ).

With so many publications focusing on bullying in higher education it is essential to be selective in choosing which ones to reference. In part this can be achieved by only referring to examples of the output of prolific authors, and by choosing representative or the most recently published articles on particular issues. Ultimately, however, the judgement on which publications to reference was one of quality or significance; in some cases this was evidenced by the number of times a publication was cited by others, while in others it came down to personal judgement (helped, in problematic cases, by discussion with colleagues).

The analysis presented in the remainder of this article is based on the 74 key articles selected in this way, which are indicated by an asterisk (*) in the references list: 80% (59) of these have been published since 2015.

Meaning of Bullying

Like many key terms, there is no generally accepted definition of what bullying is. It makes sense, therefore, to examine a few of the definitions available to see what they include and how they differ. Here we will compare three definitions given by national organisations—in the UK, Australia and the USA – with a keen interest in the topic.

In the UK, the Anti-Bullying Alliance defines bullying as ‘the repetitive, intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power. It can happen face to face or online’ ( www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk ). There are four key elements in this definition. Two of these, that bullying may involve individuals or groups, or may be face-to-face or online, seem highly pragmatic. However, the other two, that bullying is necessarily repetitive and intentional, and that it involves an imbalance of power, are questionable. Bullies may not, at least initially, know what they are doing, and one incident may be more than enough for those being bullied. And, as social scientists should be aware, power is not a simple, unidirectional force: those lower down the hierarchy may also bully those higher up.

From Australia, the National Centre Against Bullying offers a slightly longer explanation:

Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm. It can involve an individual or a group misusing their power, or perceived power, over one or more persons who feel unable to stop it from happening. Bullying can happen in person or online, via various digital platforms and devices and it can be obvious (overt) or hidden (covert). ( www.ncab.org.au )

This definition usefully introduces a distinction between overt and covert bullying, and nuances the point about power by referring to perceived power. It does, though, repeat the assertion that bullying is always intentional or deliberate, as well as introducing the debatable point that the bullied are unable to do anything about it.

Taking a third example, the American Psychological Association defines bullying in the following way:

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words, or more subtle actions. The bullied individual typically has trouble defending him or herself and does nothing to “cause” the bullying. Cyberbullying is verbally threatening or harassing behavior conducted through such electronic technology as cell phones, email, social media, or text messaging. ( www.apa.org/topics/bullying )

This definition usefully relates bullying to other unpleasant practices, in this case aggression, harassment and threatening behaviour. Reading the literature more widely identifies a whole range of other cognate or more specialised practices, including hazing, incivility, intimidation, mobbing, stalking and victimization, as well as what is now termed cyberbullying (i.e. bullying online). Bullying may also shade into, or overlap with, other behaviours, such as banter and humour (Buglass et al., 2021 ), or be labelled differently: e.g. as hostile and intimidating behaviour (Sheridan et al., 2023 ).

The American Psychological Association definition also gives attention to the bullied as well as the bully, suggesting that they bear no blame for the bullying (which might not always be the case) and that they have trouble defending themselves. There are, of course, many more definitions of bullying available, but the three used here adequately cover the main points and issues.

Drawing elements from these definitions together, then, presents a picture of bullying as unpleasant behaviour committed by an individual or group on another individual or group. The bullying may take a variety of forms, be face-to-face or online, overt or covert, one-off or repetitive, and unintentional or deliberate. The bully may use whatever power they have to harass and intimidate the bullied. The bullied suffers physical, psychological and/or reputational damage, and finds it difficult to defend themselves.

Research into bullying in higher education clearly developed from research into bullying in schools (e.g. Alvarez-Garcia et al., 2015 ; Cretu & Morandau, 2022 ; Gaffney et al., 2019 ; Moyano & Sanchez-Fuentes, 2020 ; Zych et al., 2021 ) and workplaces (e.g. Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011 ; Einarsen et al., 2020 ; Feijo et al., 2019 ; Hoel et al., 2001 ; Nielson & Einarsen, 2018 ); which are both of longer standing, and where a number of systematic reviews have already been carried out. Indeed, part of the interest in bullying in higher education is in assessing whether it translates directly from the experience of bullying in school (for both the bullies and the bullied), and in examining whether higher education, as a particular kind of workplace, attracts particular bullying behaviours. We will address the latter next.

The Particular Context of Higher Education

Higher education is, indeed, a particular kind of workplace. This manifests itself in several interconnected ways. For a start, like most other workplaces, it is hierarchical, with different grades of academic and other staff. Yet it is also hierarchical beyond the employing institution, with academics operating within the networks of their disciplines and sub-disciplines, nationally and internationally. Academic staff have, therefore, split loyalties and responsibilities.

Within the intersecting hierarchies of institution and discipline there operates the principle of ‘academic freedom’, albeit constrained by other expectations and responsibilities. In its ideal state, each academic member of staff is seen as having the freedom to determine what they teach and how they teach it, as well as what they research and how they research it. Of course, it rarely works quite like that in practice, particularly when it comes to teaching, which is today a much more collective and large-scale activity, and constrained by the need to receive good evaluations and the recognition of professional bodies. Research often depends upon gaining specific funding, so is constrained by the funds available and the priorities of funding organisations.

Academic life and careers are also built upon competition. To build a successful academic career, each academic needs to get their name known, even if only within a relatively small field: through conference presentations, through article and book publication, through successfully obtaining research grants. Each of these activities, as well as the gaining of employment and promotion, involves peer review, when a small number of academic peers are asked to make an assessment of your worthiness (Tight, 2022 ).

Critique is at the heart of these activities, in what is effectively a zero-sum game (i.e. there are only so many posts, research grants and publication spots available at any one time). Academics may get their name known not so much for their own work but for their critique of others’ work, and what may be thought of as fair criticism by one academic may be interpreted as an effort to destroy their reputation (as bullying in other words) by another.

Certain academic relationships – notably that between a research student and their supervisor (Cheng & Leung, 2022 ; Grant, 2008 ), but also between junior and senior members of academic staff working in the same area/topic – have traditionally been characterised as master/servant, or even master/slave. The dominant party – the supervisor or the senior academic – tells the junior party what to do and then assesses how well they have done it. Even today these may be strong power relationships, and may last for years.

However, at the level of the undergraduate student, where a similar kind of relationship would historically have been carried over from school, with students not allowed to challenge the academic judgements of their lecturers and professors, practices are changing. The increased privatisation of higher education, with students required to pay substantial fees, has led to a growing recognition of the student as a customer (indeed, the prime customer), with all of the rights that customers have in other circumstances.

All of these structures, practices and assumptions, and the ways they are changing and adapting to accommodate contemporary policies and expectations, would seem to offer plentiful opportunities for different kinds of bullying to take place. In short, higher education is a near perfect environment for bullying; yet, it is also a near perfect environment for the denial of bullying. Accusations of bullying may be dismissed as fair comment or ‘the way we do things around here’, with the person(s) making the accusations themselves accused of bullying those they accuse by making unwarranted complaints.

For bullying is a matter of perception, and not just in higher education but more generally as well. So anyone who feels that they are being bullied and wishes to do something about it will have to engage with a process – of formal complaint, investigation and hopefully resolution – that will take time, be semi-public and effect their working relationships. Neither the bullied not the perceived bully are likely to come out of this process with their reputation enhanced.

Extent of Bullying in Higher Education

Many attempts have been made to estimate the extent of bullying in higher education. Focusing on staff, Keashly and Neuman ( 2013 ) give the following figures:

the estimated prevalence of bullying varies depending on the nature of the sample, the operationalization of the construct, the timeframe for experiences, and the country in which the research was conducted. The rates of bullying range from 18% to almost 68%, with several studies in the 25%-35% range. These rates seem relatively high when compared to those noted in the general population, which range from 2%-5% in Scandinavian countries, 10%-20% in the UK, and 10%-14% in the United States. (pp. 10-11; see also Keashly & Neuman, 2010 )

These figures are, indeed, high, suggesting that most people working in higher education should have direct – as bully, bullied or bystander (and many of us will, of course, have performed in two or more of these roles) – or indirect, through formal roles or relationships, experience of bullying. Indeed, the estimates are so high that we might speculate that, if you are working in higher education and are not being bullied, then you’re highly likely to be either doing the bullying (whether you recognise it or not) or at least aware that bullying is going on.

In a later work synthesizing the international survey evidence, Keashly ( 2019 ) confirms this interpretation:

Using the 12-month framework, approximately 25% of faculty will identify as being bullied. Adding in the witnessing data, the research suggests that 50–75% of faculty will have had some exposure to bullying in the prior 12 months. Extending the timeframe to career, it appears that faculty who have no exposure are in the minority! Further, bullying of faculty is notable for its duration. There is also evidence that rates of bullying differ cross-nationally and institutionally, suggestive of sociocultural influences. (p. 39)

Similar conclusions may be reached regarding non-academic staff working in higher education, though they have been much less studied. Thus, one American study of higher education administrators noted that: ‘Participants from 175 four-year colleges and universities were surveyed to reveal that 62% of higher education administrators had experienced or witnessed workplace bullying in the 18 months prior to the study’ (Hollis, 2015 , p. 1).

The estimates for students also suggest that a significant minority are directly involved in bullying as bully or bullied. In the USA, Lund and Ross ( 2017 ) note that:

Prevalence estimates varied widely between studies, but on average about 20–25% of students reported noncyberbullying victimization during college and 10–15% reported cyberbullying victimization. Similarly, approximately 20% of students on average reported perpetrating noncyberbullying during college, with about 5% reporting cyber perpetration. (p. 348)

In a four-nation comparative study, Pörhölä et al ( 2020 ) draw particular attention to variations in bullying rates amongst students and staff between countries:

The overall rates of bullying victimization and perpetration between students were the highest in Argentina, followed by the USA, Finland, and finally Estonia. However, victimization by university personnel was reported the most in Estonia, followed by Argentina, the USA, and Finland. (p. 143)

We might also, though the data is mostly not available, expect that bullying rates would vary between disciplines and departments (Bjaalid et al., 2022 ), from institution to institution, and in terms of individuals’ demographic characteristics (age, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.).

The Nature of Bullying in Higher Education

Most of the studies on bullying in higher education that have been identified relate to either bullying amongst academic staff or amongst students. There are a much more limited number of studies concerning bullying amongst professional, administrative or support staff in higher education. More recently, a related literature has grown on cyberbullying.

Bullying amongst academic staff is portrayed as being mainly obstructional or reputational in nature: ‘Of all the types of bullying discussed in the literature, the behaviors most frequently cited in academia involve threats to professional status and isolating and obstructional behavior (i.e., thwarting the target’s ability to obtain important objectives)’ (Keashly & Neuman, 2010 , p. 53). After all, (some) academics are regularly involved in making decisions that impact upon other academics; academic life is judgemental and discriminatory. These decisions may relate to almost any aspect of academic life, from teaching allocations and course responsibilities, to promotions, publication and research grants, to the seemingly mundane but critical issues of office space and car parking.

Bullying impacts on some groups of academics more than others; in particular, and unsurprisingly, on the marginalized: ‘academic culture facilitates the marginalization of particular social identity groups… this marginalization is a reason for higher rates of bullying among gender, racial and ethnic, and sexual identity minorities in academe’ (Sallee & Diaz, 2013 . p. 42). This impact is not, of course, confined to higher education.

Bullying amongst academic staff is also believed to be changing in nature, becoming somewhat more subtle as grievance and appeal procedures are overloaded with complaints:

a shift in negative higher education workplace behaviour is occurring. This change primarily results in the well-defined and identified practice of bullying being replaced with victims enduring the accumulated impact of acts of varied disrespect such as negative comments, under the breath comments, intentionally misinterpreting instructions or spreading rumours, collectively known as incivility . (Heffernan & Bosetti, 2021 , p. 1; see also Higgins, 2023 )

The evidence shows that bullying appears to work both ways, bottom up as well as top down. Thus, deans, who oversee faculties or groups of departments and are a key part of higher education’s middle management, have been identified as particularly subject to bullying: ‘a majority of deans currently experience regular acts of bullying or incivility… Many deans believe that an inherent part of their role is that they will be bullied, and as such, part of their role is to deal with these actions’ (Heffernan & Bosetti, 2021 , p. 16). It might be expected, then, that heads of department would have a similar experience – bullied from above to meet institutional targets and from below by individual academics seeking to get their own way – but this does not appear to have been the direct object of research (yet).

One study that focused on the experience of support staff (i.e. non-academic staff) in one English university (Thomas, 2005 ) found that 19 of 42 respondents had experienced bullying within the last two years, whilst 17 had witnessed colleagues being bullied:

The top four bullying tactics ranked in frequency of reporting were undue pressure to reduce work, undermining of ability, shouting abuse, and withholding necessary information. When bullying occurred it was likely to be by a line manager. (p. 273)

From a North American context, where support staff are more usually termed professional staff, Fratzl and McKay ( 2013 ) make the point that they are ‘sandwiched between students and academics who may display aggressive behavior in order to deal with threats and meet their needs’ (2013, p. 70). Given these added pressures, it is critical that such staff are well supported.

For students, bullying may most commonly be carried out by other students, but also by academic staff. Blizard ( 2019 ), however, shows that the opposite, student-on-staff bullying, is also common. The majority, 22, of her 36 staff respondents in a Canadian university reported that they had experienced cyberbullying by students.

In the Spanish context, Gómez-Galán et al. ( 2021 ) identify the dominant form of student-on-student bullying as relational, as opposed to physical or verbal, and portray this as part of a continuing lifetime experience:

Relational victimization, which manifests itself through defamation, social exclusion, or denigration, persists in the university environment. Moreover, it does so mainly because of a pattern of relational violence that is repeated from the compulsory education stage… It constitutes what we call “the spiral of relational violence”—victimization which runs throughout the student’s life with psychological repercussions that can continue into adulthood, especially in the workplace. (p. 10)

The experience of being bullied, and of being a bully, may be deeply ingrained and lifelong (Manrique et al., 2020 ).

In a comparative study of students in China and Germany, Lin et al ( 2020 ) looked at the roles of social support, resilience and self-efficacy in mediating between bullying behaviours and mental health: ‘It was found that in both countries, higher victimization frequency was associated with lower levels of social support, personal resilience, and self-efficacy, which in turn predicted poorer mental health’ (p. 1). This is, of course, what you would expect.

As with academic staff, bullying amongst students is more often targeted at the less powerful and marginalized. Simpson and Cohen ( 2004 ) argue for the gendered nature of bullying, noting that ‘While sexual harassment is ‘overtly’ gendered, bullying also needs to be seen as a gendered activity — although at a different, and perhaps more deep-seated, level’ (p. 183). Faucher et al. ( 2019 ) confirm this pattern for cyber-bullying, while a recent systematic review carried out by Bondestam and Lundqvist (2020) found that, on average, one out of four female students reported sexual harassment.

A survey of students ( n  = 414) in one Australian university found that non-heterosexual students were much more likely (30% to 13%) to report bullying than heterosexual students (Davis et al., 2018 ). Homophobic and transphobic bullying of students is a concern in both face-to-face (Clark et al., 2022 ; Koehler & Copp, 2021 ; Rivers, 2016 ) and online (Pescitelli, 2019 ) settings.

There is also some evidence that students (and staff) working in particular disciplines, such as medicine (Björklund et al., 2020 ; Seabrook, 2004 ), are more likely to experience bullying. Such professional disciplines are clearly linked to particular kinds of workplaces, within which placements for training will be based. A greater incidence of bullying may also occur in particular kinds or levels of study; thus, the research student experience might seem to lend itself to staff-on-student bullying, but has been little researched from this perspective (Aziz, 2016 ).

Cyber-bullying in higher education is now being increasingly studied. In an international collection, Faucher et al. ( 2019 ) report the incidence of cyberbullying amongst students varying between 3% in Japan and 46% in Chile. They use the term ‘contra-power harassment’ to refer to cyberbullying of staff by students.

Other, nationally focused, studies have noted the relationship between cyberbullying and victimisation in Turkey, with some victims later becoming bullies (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011 ), identified psychological security, loneliness and age as predictors of cyberbullying in Saudi Arabia (Al Qudah et al., 2020 ), correlated cyberbullying with students’ belief in a just world in Germany (Donat et al., 2022 ), and linked the experience of cyberbullying to depression, anxiety, paranoia and suicidal feelings in the USA (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012 ).

Simmons et al. ( 2016 ) prefer the stronger term cyber-aggression to cyberbullying, and note its incidence among the members of American sororities and fraternities, where ‘racism is a theme that undergirds much of the online aggression’ (p. 108). Lee et al. ( 2022 ) examine the role of parental care and family support in moderating cyberbullying at an American university during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, when the vast majority of higher education provision went online.

Issues and Solutions

As well as examining the nature and extent of bullying in higher education, researchers have sought to better understand the issues it raises and to put forward possible solutions to it. One key issue that has attracted research is the relationship between bullying at school and bullying in higher education. Pörhölä ( 2016 ) reviews the evidence showing that both bullying and being bullied are fairly stable experiences throughout school, and then commonly continue into higher education, though the identities of the people being bullied and those doing the bullying may, of course, change. Young-Jones et al ( 2015 ) confirm these findings in the American context, and note its consequences:

students are susceptible to bullying after high school, and the effects can negatively impact college life, academic motivation, and educational outcomes. In addition, past victimization can cause academic difficulties for college students, even after the harassment has ceased. (p. 186)

Another key issue researched – turning the focus away from students and towards academics – has been the relation between bullying and the contemporary, neoliberal university. Zabrodzka et al. ( 2011 ) report on the findings of a collective biography group of academics based in the Czech Republic, Iran and Australia. They concluded that ‘bullying is co-implicated in, and justified by, the alleged need for control and improvement of our performance’ (p. 717).

In a similar study, based in Sweden, Zawadski and Jensen ( 2020 ) present their findings from a co-authored analytic autoethnography, arguing that: ‘Academics in contemporary universities have been put under pressure by the dominance of neoliberal processes, such as profit maximization, aggressive competitiveness, individualism or self-interest, generating undignifying social behaviours, including bullying practices’ (p. 398).

Of course, academics are not the only workers finding themselves under increasing pressure today. The particular nature of higher education can, however, serve to channel those pressures in a more aggressive, bullying, way.

Nelson and Lambert ( 2001 ) focus on how academic bullies get away with it, identifying a series of neutralization or normalization techniques that deflect attention away from themselves and towards those they bully:

appropriation and inversion , in which accused bullies claim victim status for themselves; evidentiary solipsism , in which alleged bullies portray themselves as uniquely capable of divining and defining the “true” meaning-structure of events; and emotional obfuscation , which takes the form of employing symbols and imagery that are chosen for their perceived ability to elicit an emotional response on the part of an academic audience. (p. 83)

With these kinds of tactics available, it would be little wonder if, in a sector of work where reputation is all important, most victims of bullying chose not to formally pursue grievances (but, of course, we don’t have this data).

Turning to the research on possible solutions to bullying in higher education, a significant amount of attention has been devoted to examining institutional policies (e.g. Barratt-Pugh & Krestelica, 2019 ; Campbell, 2016 ; Harrison et al., 2020 , 2022 ). Thus, in a relatively early, and small-scale, study conducted in an English further/higher education college, Hughes ( 2001 ) focused on identifying examples of good practice for dealing with bullying of students. He came up with an extensive list:

immediate action; good communication; informal discussions; mediation; giving a talk to a tutor group; trying not to use student nicknames; moving students to other teaching groups; choosing groups for students to work in; including students in groups which are excluding them; use of subtlety; putting complaints into writing; making students aware of their actions; and making students aware of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour (p. 12)

In a more recent study, Vaill et al., ( 2020 ; see also Vaill et al., 2023 ) examined the student anti-bullying policies of 39 Australian universities, concluding that: ‘The overall paucity of information and consistency, as well as the poor user-friendliness of many of the documents, highlights the need for changes to be made’ (p. 1262).

An American study focused on the bullying of staff examined 276 faculty codes of conduct in the context of the first amendment of the American constitution. This also concluded that current arrangements were far from satisfactory: ‘higher education institutions should change their Faculty Codes of Conduct so bullying is defined as a distinctive form of harassment, provide faculty and staff clear communications regarding how to define bullying, and offer guidance for both targets and bystanders of workplace bullying’ (Smith & Coel, 2018 , p. 96).

After providing a psycho-social-organizational analysis of the problem of faculty-on-faculty bullying in the USA, Twale ( 2018 ), like Hughes, comes up with a list of ‘practical remedies’. Her list is, however, rather longer, covering a total of 20 bullet-pointed pages (pp. 171–190). Her ‘practical remedies’ include suggestions for promoting physical and psychological health and well-being; promoting social interaction, professionalism and support; considering institutional obligations; providing institutionally sponsored training and development; giving attention to institutional values, beliefs and attitudes; and using administrative intervention strategies.

Bullying, and dealing with it effectively, is a complex and far-reaching business.

A number of general conclusions may be drawn from this review of research into bullying in higher education.

First, and most fundamentally, bullying is clearly a major problem in higher education. It is extensive, continuing, complex and arguably endemic. It involves both students and staff (academic and non-academic) and deserves much more attention.

Second, its complexity is increased by the varied dimensions in which higher education staff and, to a lesser extent, students, operate. Thus, they not only work within a particular course, department, faculty and institution, but also practice their discipline or sub-discipline nationally and internationally. Given the global nature of the higher education enterprise, and the multicultural character of many universities and colleges, we may also add to this complexity the variations in national and sub-national cultures and assumptions.

Third, bullying is a very broad and inclusive term, which includes behaviours that are now more usually discussed in the more specialised languages of, for example, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia or transphobia (i.e. affecting those who may feel particularly marginalised). To focus on these more specialised areas, however, risks ignoring the many, more commonplace types of bullying that take place, for example, between straight white men and/or straight white women.

Fourth, the role of perception in bullying has to be acknowledged. Just as the bullied have to recognise that they are being bullied for bullying to be identified, so the bullies may not realise that that is what they are doing until they are called out, and, even then, they may still not accept it for what it is. This also applies, of course, to those – individuals, departments, committees and institutions – called upon to rule on and resolve alleged instances of bullying. Naturally enough, this makes bullying so much more difficult to deal with.

Fifth, and finally, there is the question alluded to earlier in this article; namely, does higher education encourage particular kinds of bullying? Here, we need to acknowledge that universities and colleges are a particular kind of institution, to a considerable extent closed off from the outside world, within which other rules apply and high-stakes decisions affecting individuals’ futures are routinely taken. When we add in the additional pressures imposed by managerialism and neoliberalism, it is little wonder that the scope for bullying is enhanced.

It would be nice to be able to draw out from all of this research some key lessons which we all might usefully learn, and which would go some significant way to resolving the issue of bullying in higher education. But, of course, it is not that simple. Some of the key lessons to be learnt have just been summarised, and, as indicated, many institutions and individuals have set out recommendations for improving practice. And, yet, bullying remains rife in higher education across the globe.

Perhaps, instead, we also need to re-emphasise the cultural and intellectual traditions of higher education. As well as clamping down hard on all kinds of bullying, higher education institutions could usefully stress their expansive and liberatory functions. These include encouraging and supporting learning in all areas and on all topics; extending a warm welcome to all who can benefit from their provision and resources; and bringing people together to cooperate in expanding knowledge and understanding.

The university is a great institution, and one of the longest lasting that humans have created. While it has changed and expanded massively over the years, it still holds onto cherished ideas of, for example, intellectual freedom, fairness and scholarship. We need to strengthen these if we are to have any hope of overcoming bullying.

The articles asterisked (*) were identified by the systematic review.

*Ahmed, B., Yousaf, F., Ahmad, A., Zohra, T., & Ullah, W. (2022). Bullying in Educational Institutions: college students’ experiences. Psychology, Health and Medicine , https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2067338

*Akbulut, Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and Victimisation among Turkish University Students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 27 (7), 1155-1170.

*Al Qudah, M. F., Al-Barashdi, H. S., Hassan, E. M. A. H., Albursan, I. S., Heilat, M. Q., Bakhiet, S. F. A., & Al-Khadher, M. A. (2020) Psychological Security, Psychological Loneliness and Age as the Predictors of Cyber-Bullying among University Students. Community Mental Health Journal , 56 , 393-403.

*Al-Darmaki, F., Al Sabbah, H., & Haroun, D. (2022) Prevalence of Bullying Behaviors among Students from a National University in the United Arab Emirates: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 (768305), 12.

*Álvarez-García, D., García, T., & Núñez, J. C. (2015) Predictors of School Bullying Perpetration in Adolescence: a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 23 , 126-136.

*Aziz, R. (2016). The Research Student Experience. pp. 21-32 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Badenhorst, M., & Botha, D. (2022) Workplace Bullying in a South African Higher Education Institution: academic and support staff experiences. South African Journal of Human Resource Management , 20 (0), a1909, 13.

*Barratt-Pugh, L, and Krestelica, D (2019) Bullying in Higher Education: culture change requires more than policy. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education , 23 (2–3), 109–114.

*Bartlett, J., & Bartlett, M. (2011). Workplace Bullying: an integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 13 (1), 69-84.

*Bjaalid, G., Menichelli, E., & Liu, D. (2022) How Job Demands and Resources relate to Experiences of Bullying and Negative Acts among University Employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19, 8460, 16pp.

*Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., & Roberts, K. (2010) The Prevalence of Stalking among Finnish University Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25 (4), 684-698.

*Björklund, C., Vaez, M., & Jensen, I. (2020) Early Work-Environmental Indicators of Bullying in an Academic Setting: a longitudinal study of staff in a medical university. Studies in Higher Education , https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1729114

*Blizard, L. (2019). Student-to-Faculty Targeted Cyberbullying: the impact on faculty. pp. 126-138 in Cassidy, W, Faucher, C, and Jackson, M (eds) Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts . New York, Routledge.

Bondestam, F., & Lundqvist, M. (2020). Sexual harassment in higher education: a systematic review. European Journal of Higher Education, 10 (4), 397–419.

Article   Google Scholar  

*Buglass, S. L., Abell, L., Betts, L. R., Hill, R., & Saunders, J. (2021) Banter Versus Bullying: a university student perspective. International Journal of Bullying Prevention , 3 , 287-299.

*Campbell, M. (2016). Policies and Procedures to Address Bullying at Australian Universities. pp. 157-171 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Cheng, M., & Leung, M-L. (2022). “I’m not the Only Victim…” Student perceptions of exploitative supervision relation in doctoral degree. Higher Education , 84 , 523-540.

*Clark, M., Kan, U., Tse, E. J., & Green, V. A. (2022) Identifying Effective Support for Sexual Minority University Students who have experienced Bullying. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services , https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2022.2057381

*Cretu, D., & Morandau, F. (2022). Bullying and Cyberbullying: a bibliometric analysis of three decades of research in education. Educational Review , https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2034749

*Davis, E. M., Campbell, M. A., & Whiteford, C. (2018) Bullying Victimization in Non-Heterosexual University Students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services , 30 (3), 299-313.

*Donat, M., Willisch, A., & Wolgast, A. (2022) Cyber-Bullying among University Students: concurrent relations to belief in a just world and to empathy. Current Psychology , https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03239-z

*Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (eds) (2020). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: developments in theory, research and practice. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.

*Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2019). Power in the Tower: the gendered nature of cyberbullying among students and faculty at Canadian universities. pp. 66-79 in Cassidy, W, Faucher, C, and Jackson, M (eds) Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts . New York, Routledge.

*Feijo, F., Gräf, D., Pearce, N., & Fass, A. (2019). Risk Factors for Workplace Bullying: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16, 1945.

*Fratzl, J., & McKay, R. (2013). Professional Staff in Academia: academic culture and the role of aggression. pp. 60-73 in Lester, J (ed) Workplace Bullying in Higher Education . New York, Routledge.

*Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: an updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 45 , 111-133.

*Giovaziolas, T., & Malikiosi-Loizos, M. (2016). Bullying at Greek Universities. pp. 110-126 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Gómez-Galán, J., Lázaro-Pérez, C., & Martínez-López, J. (2021). Trajectories of Victimization and Bullying at University: prevention for a healthy and sustainable educational environment. Sustainability , 13 , 3426.

Grant, B. (2008). Agonistic Struggle: Master-slave dialogues in humanities supervision. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7 (1), 9–27.

*Harrison, E., Fox, C., & Hulme, J. (2020). Student anti-bullying and harassment policies at UK universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 42(5), 547-562.

*Harrison, E., Hulme, J., & Fox, C. (2022). A thematic analysis of students’ perceptions and experiences of bullying in UK higher education. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 18 (1), 53-69.

*Heffernan, T., & Bosetti, L. (2021). University bullying and incivility towards faculty deans. International Journal of Leadership in Education , https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1850870

*Higgins, P. (2023) “I Don’t Even Recognise Myself Anymore”: an autoethnography of workplace bullying in higher education. Power and Education , https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438231163041

*Hoel, H., Cooper, C., & Faragher, B. (2001). The Experience of Bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 10 (4), 443-465.

*Hollis, L. (2015). Bully University? The cost of workplace bullying and employee disengagement in American higher education. Sage Open , April-June, 1–11.

*Hughes, G. (2001). Examples of Good Practice when dealing with Bullying in a Further/Higher Education College. Pastoral Care in Education , 19 (3), 10-13.

Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. (2011). Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Sage.

Google Scholar  

*Kaur, L, and Kaur, G (2023) Targets’ coping responses to workplace bullying with moderating role of perceived organizational tolerance: a two-phased study of faculty in higher education institutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 20 (1083), 19.

*Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: causes, consequences and management. Administrative Theory and Praxis , 32 (1), 48-70.

*Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2013). Bullying in Higher Education: what current research, theorizing and practice tell us. pp. 1-22 in Lester, J (ed) Workplace Bullying in Higher Education . New York, Routledge.

*Keashly, L. (2019). Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: faculty experience. In P Cruz et al (eds) Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4: special topics and particular occupations, professions sectors . Singapore, Springer Nature.

*Koehler, W., & Copp, H. (2021). Observations of LGBT-specific bullying at a state university. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health , 25, 4, pp. 394-407.

*Kokkinos, C., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and personality correlates of facebook bullying among university undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior , 55 , 840-850.

*Lee, J, Choi, H, and deLara, E (2022) Parental care and family support as moderators on overlapping college student bullying and cyberbullying victimization during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work , https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2022.2094744

*Lin, M., Wolke, D., Schneider, S., & Margraf, J. (2020). Bullying history and mental health in university students: the mediator roles of social support, personal resilience and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 10 , 960.

*Lund, E., & Ross, S. (2017). Bullying perpetration, victimization and demographic differences in college students: a review of the literature. Trauma, Violence and Abuse , 18 (3), 348-360.

*Malik, N., & Björkqvist, K. (2019). Workplace bullying and occupational stress among university teachers: mediating and moderating factors. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 15 (2), 240-259.

*Manrique, M., Allwood, M., Pugach, C., Amoh, N., & Cerbone, C. (2020). Time and support do not heal all wounds: mental health correlates of past bullying among college students. Journal of American College Health , 68, 3, pp. 227-235.

*Meriläinen, M., Sinkkonen, H-M., Puhakka, H., & Käyhkö, K. (2016). Bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel. Policy Futures in Education, 14 (6), 617-634.

*Moyano, N., & Sanchez-Fuentes, M. (2020). Homophobic bullying at schools: a systematic review of research, prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 53 , 101441.

*Nelson, E., & Lambert, R. (2001). Sticks, stones and semantics: the ivory tower bully’s vocabulary of motives. Qualitative Sociology , 24 (1), 83-106.

*Nielson, M., & Einarsen, S. (2018). What We Know, What We Do Not Know, and What we Should and Could Have Known about Workplace Bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 42, 71-83.

*Oksanen, A., Celuch, M., Latikka, R., Oksa, R., & Savela, N. (2022). Hate and harassment in academia: the rising concern of the online environment. Higher Education , 84 , 541-567.

*Pescitelli, A. (2019). MYSPACE or Yours? An exploratory study of homophobic and transphobic cyberbullying of post-secondary students. pp. 52-65 in Cassidy, W, Faucher, C, and Jackson, M (eds) Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts . New York, Routledge.

*Pörhölä, M., Cvancara, K., Kaal, E., Kunttu, K., Tampere, K., & Torres, M. (2020). Bullying in University between Peers and by Personnel: cultural variation in prevalence, forms and gender differences in four countries. Social Psychology of Education , 23 , 143-169.

*Pörhölä, M. (2016). Do the Roles of Bully and Victim remain stable from School to University? pp. 35-47 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Rivers, I. (2016). Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying in Universities. pp. 48-60 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Sallee, M., & Diaz, C. (2013). Sexual harassment, racist jokes and homophobic slurs: when bullies target identity groups. pp. 41-59 in Lester, J (ed) Workplace Bullying in Higher Education . New York, Routledge.

*Schenk, A., & Fremouw, W. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact and coping of cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence , 11 (1), 21-37.

*Seabrook, M. (2004). Intimidation in Medical Education: students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Studies in Higher Education , 29 (1), 59-74.

*Sheridan, J., Dimond, R., Klumpyan, T., Daniels, H., Bernard-Donals, M., Kutz, R., & Wendt, A. (2023). Eliminating bullying in the university: the university of wisconsin-madison’s hostile and intimidating behavior policy. pp. 235-258 in C Striebing, J Muller and M Schraudner (eds) Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations . Bingley, Emerald.

*Simmons, J., Bauman, S., & Ives, J. (2016). Cyber-aggression among members of college fraternities and sororities in the United States. pp. 93-109 in Cowie, H, and Myers, C-A (eds) Bullying Among University Students: cross-national perspectives . Abingdon, Routledge.

*Simpson, R., & Cohen, C. (2004) Dangerous Work: the gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, Work and Organization , 11 (2), 163-186.

*Sinha, A., & Bondestam, F. (2022). Moving beyond bureaucratic grey zones: managing sexual harassment in Indian higher education. Higher Education , (84), 469-485.

*Smith, F., & Coel, C. (2018). Workplace bullying policies, higher education and the first amendment: building bridges not walls. First Amendment Studies , 52 (1-2), 96-111.

*Spanou, K., Bekiari, A., & Theocharis, D. (2020). Bullying and machiavellianism in university through social network analysis. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 78, 1, e151.

*Su, P-Y., Wang, G-F., Xie, G-D., Chen, L-R., Chen, S-S., & He, Y. (2022). Life Course Prevalence of Bullying among University Students in Mainland China: a multi-university study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 (7–8), NP5830–5840.

*Thomas, M. (2005). Bullying among Support Staff in a Higher Education Institution. Health Education , 105(4), 273-288.

Tight, M. (2021). Syntheses of Higher Education Research: What we know . Bloomsbury.

Tight, M. (2022). Is Peer Review Fit for Purpose? In E. Forsberg, L. Geschwind, S. Levander, & W. Wermke (Eds.), Peer Review in an Era of Academic Evaluative Culture (pp. 223–241). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Torgerson, C. (2003). Systematic Reviews . Continuum.

*Twale, D. (2018). Understanding and preventing faculty-on-faculty bullying: a psycho-social-organizational approach. New York, Routledge.

*Vaill, Z., Campbell, M., & Whiteford, C. (2020). Analysing the quality of australian universities’ student anti-bullying policies. Higher Education Research and Development , 39 (6), 1262-1275.

*Vaill, Z., Campbell, M., & Whiteford, C. (2023). University students’ knowledge and views on their institution’s anti-bullying policy. Higher Education Policy , 36 (1), 1-19.

*Young-Jones, A., Fursa, S., Byrket, J., & Sly, J. (2015). Bullying affects more than feelings: the long-term implications of victimization on academic motivation in higher education. Social Psychology of Education , 18 , 185-200.

*Yubero, S., Heras, M. de las., Navarro, R., & Larrañaga, E. (2023). Relations among chronic bullying victimization, subjective well-being and resilience in university students: a preliminary study. Current Psychology , 42 (2), 855-866.

*Zabrodzka, K., Linnell, S., Laws, C., & Davies, B. (2011). Bullying as intra-active process in neoliberal universities. Qualitative Inquiry , 17 (8), 709-719.

*Zawadzki, M., & Jensen, T. (2020). Bullying and the neoliberal university: a co-authored autoethnography. Management Learning , 51 (4), 398-413.

*Zhao, J., Lu, X-H., Liu, Y., Wang, N., Chen, D-Y., Lin, I-A., Li, X-H., Zhou, F-C., & Wang, C-Y. (2022). The unique contribution of past bullying experiences to the presence of psychosis-like experiences in university students. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 13 (839630), 10.

*Zych, I., Viejo, C., Vila, E., & Farrington, D. (2021). School bullying and dating violence in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence and Abuse , 22(2), 397-412.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Malcolm Tight

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Tight .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tight, M. Bullying in higher education: an endemic problem?. Tert Educ Manag 29 , 123–137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09124-z

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2022

Accepted : 19 June 2023

Published : 30 June 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09124-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Higher education research
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Imbalance between employees and the organisational context: a catalyst for workplace bullying behaviours in both targets and perpetrators.

1. Introduction

1.1. theoretical approaches—the three-way model, 1.2. theoretical approaches—job demands and resources model, 1.3. theoretical approaches combined—the dimensions of imbalances created by organisations triggering wb, 1.3.1. organisational focus, 1.3.2. organisational atmosphere, 1.3.3. organisational hierarchy, 1.3.4. research hypotheses, 2.1. participants, 2.2. measures, 2.3. procedure, 2.4. data analysis, 3.1. descriptive statistics, 3.2. correspondence analysis on hypothesis, 3.3. correspondence analysis of wb experiences, 4. discussion, 4.1. limitations and future research, 4.2. theoretical and practical implications, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ashforth, B.E.; Gioia, D.A.; Robinson, S.L.; Treviño, L.K. Introduction to special topic forum: Reviewing organisational corruption. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008 , 33 , 670–684. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kessler, S.R.; Spector, P.E.; Chang, C.-H.; Parr, A.D. Organisational violence and aggression: Development of the three-factor Violence Climate Survey. Work Stress 2008 , 22 , 108–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Skogstad, A.; Torsheim, T.; Einarsen, S.; Hauge, L.J. Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2011 , 60 , 475–495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Zapf, D.; Cooper, C.L. (Eds.) Workplace Bullying: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice ; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salin, D. Organisational responses to workplace harassment. Pers. Rev. 2009 , 38 , 26–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Samnani, A.; Singh, P. 20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2012 , 17 , 581–589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tuckey, M.; Dollard, M.; Hosking, P.; Winefield, A. Workplace bullying: The role of psychosocial work environment factors. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2009 , 16 , 215–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands–resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001 , 86 , 499–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Baillien, E.; Rodriguez-Muñoz, A.; Van den Broeck, A.; De Witte, H. Do demands and resources affect victim’s and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave cross-lagged study. Work Stress 2011 , 25 , 128–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balducci, C.; Cecchin, M.; Fraccaroli, F. The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work Stress 2012 , 26 , 195–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Özer, G.; Escartín, J. The making and breaking of workplace bullying perpetration: A systematic review on the antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcomes of perpetration and suggestions for organisations. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2023 , 69 , 101823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007 , 22 , 309–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart, P.M.; Cooper, C.L. Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology ; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; Volume 2, pp. 93–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baillien, E.; Neyens, I.; De Witte, H.; De Cuyper, N. A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three-way model. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009 , 19 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berkowitz, L. The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation. Psychol. Bull. 1989 , 106 , 59–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Felson, R.B.; Tedeschi, J.T. Aggression and Violence: Social Interactionists’ Perspectives ; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salanova, M.; Agut, S.; Peiró, J.M. Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediating role of service climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005 , 90 , 1217–1227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. The Job Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011 , 37 , 974–983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Van Rhenen, W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. 2009 , 30 , 893–917. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007 , 14 , 121–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior ; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker, A.B.; Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M.; Xanthopoulou, D. Beyond the Demand-Control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. J. Pers. Psychol. 2010 , 9 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bruursema, K.; Kessler, S.R.; Spector, P.E. Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behavior. Work Stress 2011 , 5 , 93–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979 , 24 , 285–308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meijman, T.F.; Mulder, G. Psychological aspects of workload. In Handbook of Work and Organisational Psychology , 2nd ed.; Drenth, P.J., Thierry, H., de Wolff, C.J., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 5–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Broeck, A.; Baillien, E.; De Witte, H. Workplace bullying: A perspective from the job demands-resources model. Scand. J. Ind. Psychol. 2011 , 37 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ceja, L.; Escartín, J.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. Organisational contexts that foster positive behaviour and well-being: A comparison between family-owned firms and non-family businesses. Rev. De Psicol. Soc. 2012 , 27 , 69–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parzefall, M.R.; Salin, D. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum. Relat. 2010 , 63 , 761–780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• VanOudenhoven, J.P. Do organisations reflect national cultures? A 10-nation study. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2001 , 25 , 89–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gioia, D.A.; Schultz, M.; Corley, K.G. Organisational identity, image, and adaptative instability. Acad. Manag. J. 2000 , 25 , 63–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stiles, D.R. Pictorial representation. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research ; Cassell, C., Symon, G., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 127–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Escartín, J.; Sora, B.; Rodríguez-Muñoz, A.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. Adaptación y validación de la versión Española de la escala de conductas negativas en el trabajo realizadas por acosadores: NAQ-Perpetrators. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2012 , 28 , 157–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Escartín, J.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A.; Gómez-Benito, J.; Zapf, D. Development and validation of the workplace bullying scale “EAPA-T. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2010 , 10 , 519–539. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 , 33 , 159–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leymann, H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1996 , 5 , 165–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van de Velden, M.; van den Heuvel, W.; Galy, H.; Groenen, P.J. Retrieving a contingency table from a correspondence analysis solution. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020 , 283 , 541–548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernández-del-Río, E.; Ramos-Villagrasa, P.J.; Escartín, J. The incremental effect of Dark personality over the Big Five in workplace bullying: Evidence from perpetrators and targets. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021 , 168 , 110291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step. In Routledge eBooks ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rayner, C.; Cooper, C.L. The black hole in “bullying at work research”. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2003 , 4 , 47–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A. Job Demands–Resources Theory: Ten years later. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023 , 10 , 25–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Özer, G.; Griep, Y.; Escartín, J. The relationship between organisational environment and perpetrators’ physical and psychological State: A three-wave of longitudinal study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 3699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jenkins, M.F.; Zapf, D.; Winefield, H.; Sarris, A. bullying allegations from the accused bully’s perspective. Br. J. Manag. 2011 , 23 , 489–501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vranjes, I.; Elst, T.V.; Griep, Y.; De Witte, H.; Baillien, E. What goes around comes around: How perpetrators of workplace bullying become targets themselves. Group Organ. Manag. 2022 , 48 , 1135–1172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Neill, R.E.; Vandenberghe, C.; Stroink, M.L. Implicit reciprocity norms between employees and their employers: A psychological contract perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 2009 , 30 , 203–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience ; Harper & Row: Manhattan, NY, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life ; Basic Books; Hachette: London, UK, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glambek, M.; Skogstad, A.; Einarsen, S.V. Do the bullies survive? A five-year, three-wave prospective study of indicators of expulsion in working life among perpetrators of workplace bullying. Ind. Health 1997 , 54 , 68–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Özer, G.; Griep, Y.; Escartín, J. A matter of health? A 24-week daily and weekly diary study on workplace bullying perpetrators’ psychological and physical health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salin, D.; Hoel, H. Organisational causes of workplace bullying. In Workplace Bullying: Development in Theory, Research and Practice ; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salin, D. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum. Relat. 2003 , 56 , 1213–1232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Escartín, J.; Dollard, M.; Zapf, D.; Kozlowski, S. Multilevel emotional exhaustion: Psychosocial safety climate and workplace bullying as higher level contextual and individual explanatory factors. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2021 , 30 , 742–752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Özer, G.; Escartín, J. Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators. Behav. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751

Özer G, Escartín J. Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators. Behavioral Sciences . 2024; 14(9):751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751

Özer, Gülüm, and Jordi Escartín. 2024. "Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Generative AI in higher education: Perspectives of students, educators and administrators

• Sangeetha Kutty + −
• Ritesh Chugh + −
• Pethigamage Perera + −
• Arjun Neupane + −
• Meena Jha + −
• Lily Li + −
• Wijendra Gunathilake + −
• Nimeshia Chamini Perera + −

With Generative AI’s (GenAI) rapid development and the ability to generate sophisticated human-like text, it has evolved as a powerful technology in various domains. However, its application in the education domain was initially met with resistance due to concerns about disrupting traditional learning and assessment methods, raising questions about academic integrity, and provoking ethical dilemmas related to data privacy and bias. Many schools, higher educational institutions, and governments initially chose to ban the use of GenAI tools due to the disruptions they caused to learning and teaching practices, only to rescind their bans later. This study conducts a literature review to investigate GenAI tools from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the educational domain—students, educators, and administrators—highlighting their benefits while identifying challenges and limitations. The review found several benefits of using GenAI, such as personalised learning, immediate support, language support, and reduced administrative workload. This paper also provides usage guidelines for stakeholders and outlines future research areas to support GenAI adoption in higher education. Our findings indicate that most studies involving students had a positive view of using GenAI. There is a noticeable gap in research focusing on administrators, highlighting the need for further investigation.