The time school children spend online continues to grow exponentially. The evil of the Internet is in the associated anonymity that entails high risks of being bullied and harassed via the means of electronic communication technologies. In the hands of adolescents electronic devices transform into the instrument of peer aggression and victimization. Research points at the detrimental effects that online bullying has on academic and psychological adjustment of adolescents (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Bonanno & Hymel, 2013; Paez, 2018). Victims face an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse and delinquency (Mitchell, Ybarra & Finkelhor, 2007; Paez, 2018).

The major pitfall awaiting occasionally unsuspecting adults is them being ‘oblivious to the cyber world and to the phenomenon of cyberbullying’ (Mishna, Saini & Solomon, 2009). School children opt for not disclosing bullying incidents, including cyberbullying, as they believe that revealing cases of bullying to adults might only exacerbate it (Mishna et al., 2009). Although traditional bullying is hardly a new problem (Horton, 2016) the existing research and intervention programs still yield modest results (Rigby, 2004) let alone bullying online, first mentioned by researchers two decades ago (Hinduja & Patchin, 1998; Oliver & Candappa, 2003).

Little attempts have been made to elicit students’ involvement and experiences in cyberbullying (Tanrikulu, 2018). Studies mostly employed quantitative data collection tools which showed the certain degree of insufficiency given the sensitive nature of the studied issue. In view of this it is reasonable to argue that conducting studies on such a sensitive topic can benefit from the use of new creative qualitative research methods. The new arts-based method called graphic vignettes was designed to examine school bullying by the authors of the study and was piloted in schools in Russia in 2018. Fruitful results of the initial study prompted further development of the methodology which is why the aim of this study was to refine graphic vignettes to focus specifically on cyberbullying. The methodology was administered to children in an international boarding school in Switzerland where researchers were invited by the school administration on a considerable merit of the prior research work in bullying.

Our attempt to invite children to express their creativity and co-direct the exploration process was based on constructivist approaches to education ‘which argue that students need to be authors of their own understanding’ (Cook-Sather, 2006, p. 365). Gabriel and Connell (2010, p. 508) assert that collaborating on the creation of stories facilitates a conversation that is ‘especially useful in establishing moral boundaries, acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and fine gradations between right and wrong’. Dealing with such a sensitive topic we aimed to provide a framework for a constructivism-informed research tool that first, enables participants to construct their own vignettes making them unique to their experiences, abilities and beliefs and second, probes into different aspects related to the issue thus providing a structure for our participants without them feeling intimidated, challenged or judged. Young people feel empowered and are more responsive when they engage proactively in the research ‘shaping the process’ (Lyon & Carabelli, 2016, p. 432).

We have additionally adopted the symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969; Becker & McCall, 2009). Being active social agents in the construction of their own culture, children react to social situations like cyberbullying by adjusting to the environment they are exposed to. In line with symbolic interactionism we assumed that children respond and accommodate to the situation by interpreting its ‘signs’ and ‘symbols’. Making sense of co-constructed graphic vignettes the focus is placed on the three key features of symbolic interactionism: meaning, language, self-reflection (Mead, 1967).

The research was conducted in a Swiss private international boarding school. Students from grades 9 and 10 (aged 13-15) were invited to participate in the study. Parents of 24 students provided written informed consent, after which assent was obtained from 19 students (12 females and 7 males). The set of five graphic vignettes was designed specifically for this study. When designing our vignettes we drew upon the most common types of cyberbullying: harassment, denigration, impersonation, exclusion, outing (Slonje, Smith, & FriséN, 2013). Each participant was presented with the set of graphic vignettes to work on privately for 20 minutes. Creativity was encouraged as much as possible – participants could write or draw anything they wanted when completing their vignettes. At the same time participants were asked to use their personal experience as a prime source of inspiration. Participants were also asked to indicate the frequency of each bullying situation in their school (on a scale from 0 to 10) so that the researchers could see which situations were made up and which were real. After completing their work on graphic vignettes, the participants were asked to be interviewed (in private) and comment on each of the completed vignettes. For eliciting discussions over sensitive issues it was important for us to make sure that we were providing ‘the opportunity for young people to have greater control over the interview interaction’ (Barter and Renold, 2000, p. 319). This was achieved by enabling children to create their own graphic materials (later used as interview prompts) which helped them define the scope of their interviews. Ultimately interviews were used for cross-validation of the graphic vignettes. Our methodology involved concurrent data collection and analysis to allow for emerging data to be immediately studied and incorporated into the research process. This way over the course of the study we developed a four-step process of integrated data analysis. Step 1 involved analyzing completed graphic vignettes through interviews. At Step 2 we organized and digitized the raw data (completed graphic vignettes, interview audio files, and field notes). Step 3 involved coding of both visual and text-based data. Completed graphic vignettes were categorized, compared and counted. Both researchers considered all aspects of the completed vignettes individually (written parts, drawn and colored parts, crossed out and shaded elements). Step 4 involved collaborative work of the researchers during regular meetings.

One limitation of the study is that the sample cannot be treated as representative because despite inviting all 9 and 10 grade students self-selection was inevitable. In addition, the study obtained the participants' perspectives of cyberbullying through the use of qualitative methodology, which is why the results cannot be generalized beyond the experiences of the children in this school, as it is unknown to what extent their perspectives apply to children in different school settings in different geographic locations. Nonetheless, the study proved the potential of the methodology to elicit students' own experiences and involvement in cyberbullying given the sensitive nature of the topic and associated students’ discretion. The preliminary analysis of the collected data revealed reasons for cyberbullying among adolescents in the boarding school setting, the way students perceive a perpetrator’s and a victim’s portraits, students’ ideas regarding teachers’ role in cyberbullying incidents. We expect that the results of the research will indicate actual problems that students encounter while dealing with cyberbullying which will shed light on the possible prevention and intervention measures. At the second stage of the project we will administer the same methodology to a cohort of teachers working at the same school with an aim to reveal a hypothetical discrepancy in the way cyberbullying is viewed by students and their teachers. This can potentially ensure trust-based collaboration between children and teachers underway towards preventing cyberbullying.

Becker, H.S., & McCall, M.M. (2009). Symbolic interaction and cultural studies. London: University of Chicago Press Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(5), 685-697. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum inquiry 36(4), 359-390. Gabriel, Y., & Connell, N.A.D. (2010). Co-creating stories: Collaborative experiments in storytelling. Management Learning 41(5), 507–523. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (1998). Cyberbullying research summary. Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 299-309. Horton, P. (2016). Portraying monsters: framing school bullying through a macro lens. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 204-214. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505. Lyon, D., & Carabelli, G. (2016.) Researching young people’s orientations to the future: the methodological challenges of using arts practice. Qualitative Research 16(4), 430-445. Mead, G. (1967). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228. Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child maltreatment, 12(4), 314-324. Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2003). Tackling bullying: Listening to the views of children and young people. Nottingham: DfES. Paez, G. R. (2018). Cyberbullying among adolescents: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of school violence, 17(1), 74-85. Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. School Psychology International, 25(3), 287-300. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & FriséN, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in human behavior, 29(1), 26-32. Tanrikulu, I. (2018). Cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools: A systematic review. School psychology international, 39(1), 74-91.