Why don't faculty members report incidents of online abuse and what can be done about it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mobilization of academic research via online platforms presents a troubling paradox. Digital-first publications offer the opportunity for scholars to reach a wider audience, yet this same online vehicle for knowledge mobilization opens scholars to the risk of online abuse. Furthermore, the concept of online abuse is often misunderstood or dismissed by post-secondary institution administrators. The aim of this research is to understand why faculty members who experience online abuse do not report the such abuse to their administration, even though there is indication that support from administration is needed to manage the problem. Drawing from a series of semi-structured interviews and focus groups, this research examines the reasons why faculty members decide not to report their experiences of online abuse to their various academic administrators. A total of 11 faculty members in academic positions located North America agreed to participate in the research. We used a combination of semi-structured and narrative interview questions to understand participants’ experiences of online abuse. The data was coded using the constant comparative approach to identify emergent themes (Glaser & strauss, 1967), a nd guided by the research questions. The Theory of Planned Behavior was used to schematize the attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral controls that dissuade reporting of online abuse, and provide institutional recommendations that may encourage reporting and improve support for targeted faculty members. This study contributes to theory and practice by offering that when academic administrators foster a culture of care, faculty would be encouraged to report incidences of online abuse. • Why faculty members do not to report experiences of online abuse to administration. • Researchers conducted in depth interviews of faculty members across North America. • Significant barriers are individual, organizational , and systemic in nature. • The Theory of Planned Behavior helped to identify barriers to reporting online abuse. • Reporting can be encouraged by improving support of faculty targeted with online abuse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".