Group Index Numbers Programme Stream: Indicate WEEKEND Course Code and Course Name: Nature of Assignment: Article Title Date of Submission: Number of words Critiquing Research Article The journal article written and published by Chan, Tommy K.H. Cheung, Christy M.K and Lee, Zach W.Y. in the year 2021 sought to assess existing knowledge of cyberbullying on social networking sites and structure them in an integrative framework to enhance future research. The article was given a proper abstract, such that the first and subsequent sections properly throw more light on what it (the abstract) means and entails, how the subject matter came about, why it (subject matter) needed review and how further review/research can be done. It also gave a brief introduction on the keywords and how they add up to the context of the whole article. This critique has been structured as follows: Summary of article Strong points on the subject matter Contradictions Questions for the authors Conclusion Summary In the world of cyberspace, bullying had emerged as a major societal problem which inflicted discomfort, depression, and psychosocial harms to frail victims. Frail victims of cyberbullying in some instances tended to commit physical harm to their selves and even to the extent of committing suicide due to the discomforts they had to deal with as their perpetrators exhibited forms of hostile and aggressive behaviours towards them. Perpetrators in some instances bullied victims with the motif to harm and make their victim uneasy, they did this by making nasty comments under the posts of SNS users who become their victims as they frequently updated their digital profiles by uploading pictures of themselves and sharing posts that appealed to them online. In attempt to hurt victims, these perpetrators distributed the humiliating contents to other SNS platforms they were members of. By distributing humiliating contents of the victims by the perpetrators, these humiliating contents tend to circulate over and over again on other SNSs as they are read and shared among other SNS users which leaves victims the feeling of vulnerability. In an attempt for the perpetrators to hide their identities when being held accountable, they use false identities to create different accounts to cover up for their actions. T.K.H. Chan et al. sought to bring to light what is already known on the subject matter, what is left to be known and how research on those “holes” could consequently improve the efficacy of solutions to implement. This was done by extensive review of past studies and research journals (peer reviewed) that focused on SNS cyberbullying. A total of 56 relevant articles were selected after careful scrutiny; 23 of the selected study papers were not used extensively because they used non-human test samples (eg. social media artifacts) for their study/research. Only those that fit in with the proposed framework were used in the review. Basing on the triadic reciprocal relationship between perpetrators, victims and bystanders, the framework draws on existing knowledge to provide a comprehensive model for understanding the current trend on SNS bullying. Strong Points Reference from Lowry et al. on the exclusion of social media artifacts from extensive research really draws home on what has been glossed over with regard to research on SNS cyberbullying The questions given to aid in future research were indeed strong enough to provide a new door for more insight on the subject matter Disregarding slight contradictions, the comparative analysis between SNS bullying and other forms of bullying [section 2.2] gave SNS bullying a strong impression. Contradictions T.K.H. Chan et al. were meticulous in thought expression, yet a few contradictions could be found in the article. What makes an act an act of bully? The victim’s interpretation or the perpetrator’s intention? Section 2.2.1 agrees with the victim’s interpretation, 2.2.2 and 2.2.5 seem to hint toward the perpetrator’s intention rather, so far as the harassing item has been put on the SNS. Though the purpose for the study was clearly stated in the abstract, I find it slightly contradicting to exclude past reviews that dwelt more on non-human test samples for their review. Since the reference from Lowry et al. in section 1 hinted that past disregard for their importance on the matter has done a huge disservice to the academic community. Questions for the Authors Will future test samples include persons from the “hinterlands” (those with internet connection at least)? Or the given sample data (which predominantly include middle and upper class society members) should be well enough for the cause and extrapolation the only means for global assumption? How did the study papers include those written in non-English languages if the search was done with English search words and by English speaking people? After the forward and backward search on the study papers, were the 5 articles given the same scrutiny as the previous papers again or were they taken merely because they meet the criteria for the forward/backward search? Conclusion Inasmuch as the article was structured as a review of other articles, it was able to present some salient points on the subject matter as described in the abstract. The integrative framework does a good work in identifying and bringing to light the vital points that will aid future research to plug the holes left by prior studies and consequently cover more grounds on cyberbullying. Nonetheless, expecting this much from it when it purposely left out studies that dwelt more on some of those "holes" will have the academic community left marking time. The questions presented to aid future research, though, seem to provide a whole new spectrum of opportunities for better insight on the matter.
