A Mindset of It Won t Happen to Me

Transcription

1 A Mindset of It Won t Happen to Me An Exploration of Young People s Attitudes towards Online Risks and Digital Resilience Katie Collett THE DIANA AWARD 120 MOORGATE, LONDON, EC2M 6UR

2 Contents Introduction... 1 Ethics... 2 Methodology... 3 Data collection... 3 Data analysis... 3 Sampling... 3 Sampling strategies... 3 The sample... 3 Limitations... 4 Research Findings What are young people s coping mechanisms when they encounter risk online?... 4 Approach to online risk... 4 Peers approach to online risk... 5 Coping mechanisms What do young people understand by the term digital resilience?... 7 Definitions of digital resilience What levels of digital resilience exist amongst young people? How can we foster digital resilience amongst young people? Building digital resilience Age at which to start learning about digital resilience Role of family Conclusion Appendix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The researcher would like to extend her sincere gratitude to all of the research participants and to Pooja Kumari who assisted with this report. 1

3 Introduction In April 2016 The Diana Award conducted a focus group to examine young people s attitudes towards online risks and digital resilience. The aim of the research was to inform Vodafone s messaging and choice of terminology to use with their target audience when talking about digital resilience in future projects. The researchers sought to understand young people s familiarity with the term resilience and what it means to them in offline contexts as well as online, to explore which terms the group would use and understand when discussing digital resilience, and to gain their suggestions for what interventions could help build resilience in a learning environment. Digital resilience was the topic of a recent report from YoungMinds, Resilience for the Digital World, which examined the varying extents to which online risks can have an impact depending on an individual s resilience: Children and young people s resilience is strongly implicated in how online risks are experienced, and their ability to cope when problems arise. There is considerable variation in the extent to which young people report being upset or traumatised by online encounters, and their duration. (Day, 2016) The Diana Award researchers aimed to encourage participants to reflect on their own experiences by presenting them with a number of hypothetical situations throughout the focus group. These scenarios explored the three principal types of online risks encountered by children and young people, as classified by Hasebrink, et al (2009): Content risks, relating to mass-produced or user-generated content likely to cause distress; Contact risks, where the child or young person participates in adult-initiated activities (whether voluntary or not); and Conduct risks, where the child or young person is a victim and / or perpetrator of peer-led online activities. Seven young people between the ages of 10 and 18 took part in the focus group, which used interactive activities and discussions to elicit answers to four key questions: 1. What are young people s coping mechanisms when they encounter risk online? 2. What do young people understand by the term digital resilience? 3. What levels of digital resilience exist amongst young people? 4. How can we foster digital resilience amongst young people? Ethics Parental consent was obtained for all young people who were involved in the study, as well as oral consent from the young people themselves. All participants were also reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any point without providing a reason. 2

4 Methodology Data collection The most appropriate way of eliciting the information required to answer the research questions was through running a focus group. A focus group is a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher s interest that provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction (Morgan, 1997: 6). The focus group setting is an organised and facilitated discussion, where the researcher provides the topic of discussion and the individuals provide the data through their interactions. The setting aims to facilitate a natural conversation. The purpose of conducting a focus group was to attempt to capture, in some form, the opinions of young people as opinions are expressed in interactions between two or more people, and opinions have to be collected and transmitted in some way in order to become public opinion. (Macnaghten & Myers, 2004, p.2). Data analysis A thematic analysis was conducted on the focus group data. Thematic analysis is a form of pattern recognition within the data (Fereday and Cochrane, 2006) through a systematic process of identifying themes (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) and this allows the researcher to examine the most salient themes arising from the data (Attride-Stirling, 2001). This form of data analysis will allowed the researcher to examine young people s views on their safety and risks in the online world and their views on the concept of digital resilience. Sampling Sampling strategies The sample was self-selected as students who were involved in The Diana Award research network were contacted to see if they were interested in getting involved in the focus group. The researcher attempted to ensure that a diverse sample was obtained by pushing out the opportunity to get involved through multiple channels e.g. , social media, word-of-mouth, however due to the limited timeframe to sample participants this was not fully successful. The sample Gender Age Region 1 Female 18 East of England 2 Female 18 East of England 3 Female 15 London 4 Female 14 London 5 Male 13 South East 6 Male 13 South East 7 Male 10 London 3

5 Limitations Good social research should be honest about what it can and cannot capture (Hakim, 2012). The main limitations of this research centre on sampling strategies. Due to the nature of conducting research with young people, sampling was opportunistic and was based on parental consent and availability of the young person to travel to the venue. This leaves the research open to sample-selection bias and the potential for particular social groups to be excluded. However, sampling in this way was unavoidable as the research sought a small sample size in order to investigate the research question using exploratory research. The opportunity to get involved with the research was advertised on The Diana Award s online network of young people. It is important to note that The Diana Award s online network contains young people who are already engaged with the work of The Diana Award, and so may be more aware of issues around risk and safety online. It is important to take this into consideration when examining the results. The research identified focus groups as the best method of eliciting the information required to answer the research questions. A limitation of this research method is treating individuals as the unit of analysis, rather than the focus group discussion as a whole. The researchers were conscious of this in the analysis of the data. Furthermore, it has been argued that data extracted from focus groups are not reliable as you cannot access people s private thoughts in the public sphere and there may be a degree of confirming to popular views in order to avoid conflict. However, it has also been argued that instead of disregarding data from group settings we need to acknowledge the different types of discourses that may be expressed in the private and public arena, or with peers versus with an interviewer (Kitzinger, 1994). The focus group setting is thus the most appropriate method of obtaining and interrogating popular opinion amongst young people. Research Findings 1. What are young people s coping mechanisms when they encounter risk online? Approach to online risk Before discussing coping mechanisms students use when they encounter negative situations online, the researchers aimed to establish the group s knowledge and experience of online risks by examining the positives and negatives of the internet as well as a variety of hypothetical scenarios. Priming students to consider different risks was considered especially important since research has found that young people often display a low level of concern about the dangers posed to their personal safety by the internet. 1 Students were keen to emphasise that overall the internet is a positive tool, and the majority of their experiences have been positive. However they were aware of the risks that exist and had had exposure to various online risks to different degrees. To gauge familiarity with these risks, the researchers presented students with a range of online scenarios involving conduct and contact risks and asked them to offer suggestions, advice and possible consequences of engaging in that activity (fig. 1-4 in appendix). 1 Day (2016, p.9) 4

6 Key online safety messages were present in students answers. One scenario explored oversharing online, a risk associated with the heightened impulsivity [and] attention seeking which are normal features of adolescence and can be magnified or distorted online. 2 Students identified potential risks including regretting posting online, being unable to take it back, and risk to reputation, explaining that when you post something online it s always going to be there (student, male, 13). Students were able to readily offer the reasons why they would avoid risky activities or take appropriate precautions. For instance when presented with the scenario of a friend whose excessive use of social media is impacting on their sleep and diet, the group identified risks to health and reduced social interaction as a consequence of this scenario, and advised turning Wi-Fi off or being mindful of time spent on social media in order to mitigate this risk (Appendix Fig. 4). There seemed to be a high level of awareness of potential consequences of engaging in risky activities, which one student explained was partly due to these messages being present in school. When discussing the reasons why they wouldn t meet up with someone they only know online, he stated it s being taught in schools and children are a bit more aware now (student, male, 13). Interestingly, the majority of the group said that they had friends online who they hadn t met before. When asked what they would call these people, interestingly none of the group used the word strangers, instead choosing words like acquaintances, mutuals, or even in some cases best friends if the student had known them for a long time and if the friends that you know outside aren t as good as them (student, female, 15). However when pressed on whether this student would meet up with online friends offline, she agreed that she would take precautions before meeting up online, such as talking to the person on FaceTime or Snapchat first to verify their identity. Overall the answers given confirmed the high levels of awareness of risk present amongst the group and indicated that positive online safety messages are being reinforced at school. Peers approach to online risk Whilst students demonstrated good knowledge about online risks and key online safety messages, some admitted that their friends don t follow suit and are inconsistent in their approach to online safety: For my friend she might be private on like one account but not being private on a different social platform, but it s like what s the point? Student, female, 15 Although this student equates a lack of consistency regarding privacy settings across different social networks with a lack of concern for online safety, this behaviour could be seen as taking a nuanced approach to social media and using a different, less private platform for more public communication. Another student commented on her friends general approach towards the risks presented by the internet: With a lot of young people, there s a very, like a, an opinion of a mindset of it won t happen to me Student, female, 18 Similarly one student commented on his peers indifference towards protecting their privacy when using social media: 2 Day (2016, p.38) 5

7 On Instagram and on Facebook you can like geotag your photos and stuff so people know where you are. And I don t think that s that good, like I would never post a photo with my street name or geotag the place I m in whilst I m there just in case someone I don t know sees it. Researcher: Do you think that your friends, people your own age, think the same way? No, they just post without thinking. Student, male, 13 These statements are indicative that the group are aware of the risks but see them as low-priority. Although ostensibly commenting on the behaviour of friends, it is important to bear in mind that statements students make about their peer group as a whole are likely to also apply to them. Whilst the group were able to offer insightful recommendations about how to stay safe online, these comments suggest that they don t bear the risks in mind on a day-to-day basis. The findings tally with the YoungMinds study which states that there would seem to be a low level of concern amongst the general population of children and young people, regarding their vulnerability online 3. Coping mechanisms Coping strategies can be defined as thoughts and behaviours to adapt to stressful or disturbing situations, in order to protect oneself from further psychological harm 4. Students identified a range of different ways in which they would cope with negative experiences online and explained that one person s coping mechanisms may differ from someone else s: Sometimes your coping mechanisms can be personal to you. - Student, male, 13 This hints at an understanding of different levels of resilience that can exist between different people. Similarly one student explained that if she was to help a friend cope with an upsetting situation, it would be important to bear in mind that what works for one person may not work for another: I don t think there is a specific thing for it [ ] it s not like you can just say something that s automatically, done, I know what to do, it s not like that. It s almost like it s a process of like, ok, I might tell my friend do this to stay calm and they might do the same thing, add something else, or interpret it in a different way. So there s not set way but a particular way [ ] can stem from different things Student, female, 15 The students therefore appreciate that different people can react to situations in different ways and have strategies for coping with negative experiences in ways that are unique to them. They were familiar with the idea of using a coping mechanism to help with something upsets them online and offered the following examples: Talking to others about what s upsetting you: friends, parents, teachers Do something you enjoy to distract your mind Going on positive social media accounts Looking at the comments and if others agree with you that makes you feel better Write things down texting friends, writing notes, writing song lyrics Sleep Drawing 3 Day (2016, p.22) 4 D Haenens et. al. (2013, p.2) 6

8 Listen to music Watch YouTube videos Intervene with the situation and say why they disagree Speak to an older person who might have been through the same thing However students admitted that not all of these would be effective for them personally. The most popular coping mechanism which students said they would actually use if they were upset by something online was talking to others, which echoes the EU Kids Online findings that talking to somebody is the most popular employed strategy, regardless of the type of risk. 5 One student explained how he would advise a friend using coping mechanisms he was familiar with: Probably tell them to just take their mind off it and just not think so much about it [ ] and if it is something very serious get someone like who is quite serious, so maybe the police or ChildLine services, involved in it if it will affect you and it is something very serious. Student, male, 10 The students demonstrated a high level of awareness of how to cope with negative or risky online situations. They were able to offer examples of strategies that can be employed when these situations are encountered and felt comfortable advising their peers on coping mechanisms that could be considered. This indicates that peer-led approaches to building resilience could prove effective since the students felt confident in offering advice and support to their friends. 2. What do young people understand by the term digital resilience? Resilience is described by D Haenens et. al. as the ability to deal with negative experiences online or offline 6. The researchers sought to understand the words and phrases students use to describe this quality, and were keen to avoid naming resilience in the initial discussions in order to understand if students would identify this term without prompting. Instead, students were asked to identify the qualities a person would have if they were able to handle a negative situation particularly well. The initial conversations about resilience online and offline revealed misconceptions about the term. The group agreed that two people can have the same experience online but react differently, and named the qualities that a person might possess if they were able to overcome difficulty online as strength, independence and ability to not care : They re obviously quite strong and independent, because if it was someone who couldn t really deal with it they would probably have to go to a friend or something, whereas them they can just keep it in and be like I don t care and then it s gone. Student, male, 10 However this view does not correspond with what would typically be considered as resilient behaviour, since the ability to know when to approach a friend in times of need can be a key strategy to deal with online difficulties. The fact that students would perceive this behaviour to be a weakness highlights inconsistency in their opinions: despite offering this very strategy as an example of a coping mechanism they would use in the previous activity, their initial conception of what it means to be resilient indicates an idealised view of someone who is strong enough to be unaffected by situations and who demonstrates independence by handling them alone. 5 D Haenens et. al. (2013, p.3) 6 Ibid. 7

9 This idealistic notion of resilience was underpinned by students emphasis on the importance of optimism. One student explained that a person who coped well with online difficulties would possess high levels of optimism: [ ] because they feel, like, really positive about everything, and they re like now that I ve sorted this out I can just get on with my day and I can just resume what I was doing. Student, male, 13 Whilst optimism comes into play to a certain extent in the concept of resilience, and resilient children are able to transfer negative emotions into positive (or neutral) feelings, when combined with the qualities of ability to not care and independence, the emphasis on optimism reveals a superficial view of the concept which does not acknowledge that a young person can still display resilience even if they do not remain positive throughout an upsetting online experience. Students were familiar with the term resilience and were able to apply it to the offline world, in situations such as getting through exams and revision, coping with bad grades, as well as talking to people in general: We came up with resilience. [ ] being able to like, kind of like take it on the chin. [ ] just like being able to kind of move on and take it in their stride. Student, female, 18 Their awareness of the term indicates that it is well-used in schools and that teachers are using the term frequently, which is to be expected since character education has been a core focus of the Department for Education since Yet it could be argued that students initial notions of the characteristic indicates that schools are not teaching it in enough depth to fully understand what resilience entails. Definitions of digital resilience The researchers aimed to explore the different words and phrases used by the group when discussing digital resilience. The definitions given demonstrated inconsistencies in their viewpoints. As the group started to unpick the concept the answers given demonstrated more of a depth of understanding, yet misconceptions still remained. When asked what features someone would have if they were digitally resilient, some demonstrated a good understanding: To be able to accept it when online content affects you, move on and use it to shape your opinions Not being strongly affected by things online (e.g. negativity) know how to deal with situations Digital Resilience means to have positivity towards the negativity online and to deal with it easily The ability to accept your individual reaction and how you are likely to be affected by a situation is an important part of digital resilience, and using the situation to shape your opinions is an answer which demonstrates insight into what it means to be resilient. Whilst having awareness about potential risks and in the online world and the coping mechanisms to use when they are encountered is an important aspect of the concept, not being strongly affected and having 7 8

10 positivity towards the negativity again reflect the idealised notion of how people with high levels of resilience handle difficulty. Other students contradicted the earlier coping mechanisms given by equating digital resilience with the ability to ignore or dismiss negative online experiences without being particularly affected: Not being affected by the abuse/negativity Not being affected by the upset on the digital device Be positive about the negatives Not to be too affected and move on When you are getting a lot of online abuse and hate, but you don t care and you carry on doing what you re doing. One student explained that she would define digital resilience as to not be bothered or worried because in the future it might not matter, and added that whilst situations can be difficult to handle at the time, they can be overcome with time: Researcher: Do you feel like, you know, when you re in the middle of something that s quite difficult online it does feel very significant? Yeah. But [ ] later you might look back and wonder why you were so worried Student, female, 14 This suggests that students find that upsetting experiences online can with hindsight diminish in severity, and their sense resilience is something which develops over time with exposure to similar situations. One student also felt that digital resilience involves not becoming fixated on the actions of few: Like, you re doing something that maybe 100 people like and then a few people dislike and then you re like, OK, and then you carry on doing it. So like, you ve accepted their opinions but you don t let it shape what you want to do. Student, male, 13 This comment emerged after discussion about how to define digital resilience and broadly reflects how the researchers would characterise resilience. The conversations between the group had led the student into this direction of thinking, showing that perhaps a small setting with external facilitator is a constructive environment to learn about the concept. Another explained that he thought that being resilient involves accepting the negative situation and ignoring it: Not being affected by the action. So if you re on your phone and someone s [ ] you re taking a selfie, and someone s [ ] disliked it, and said a bad comment, just being like OK, that s their opinion, so you can t change their opinion but you can just ignore. So, it s not affecting you, and they re just like why isn t this guy being affected. Because they re looking for you to be annoyed and make a big deal about it. Student, male, 10 This statement again highlights the contradiction in students interpretation of resilience. Despite the wide variety of coping mechanisms listed, and the acknowledgement that different people cope 9

11 differently with negative online experiences, these comments suggest that students instinct is to define resilience as the ability to ignore negativity online. However other members of the group agreed that just ignoring the situation doesn t automatically equate to resilience, rather it s about dealing with a situation effectively and making use of coping mechanisms: If it was offline, I wouldn t call them resilient if people were saying mean things about them and they were just ignoring it [ ] that s not a coping mechanism Student, female, 18 There was broad consensus with this viewpoint from the rest of the group, indicating a possible gender divide in perceptions of resilience. Whereas the males were more likely to cite ability to not care and not letting it affect you as a characteristic of a resilient person, the females were more likely to unpick that viewpoint and refer back to the coping mechanisms. This could be for a range of different reasons, for instance the males feeling less inclined to show what they perceive to be weakness by asking for help. The group was divided on whether there s a difference between being resilient online and offline. One student explained that he thought that negative situations are easier to deal with online: You could easily just ignore it [online]. Whereas if it s one of your friends [offline] and it s maybe, I don t know like a game or something, and you think you re right but he thinks he s right, it s quite hard to just ignore it. Cos he ll then come back and be like why are you doing this and asking more questions, so it s easier to deal with it online. Student, male, 10 However another student didn t think there was a difference and explained that situations offline sometimes require resilience to deal with them: Offline, you have to be resilient, and sometimes just like not reply. Because like when you re having an argument with someone in real life and then in your head, you ve got something, like a really good comeback to say to them but it might be like really offensive, and stuff, and they re shouting everything back at you and saying all this offensive stuff to you, and then you re just, sort of, inhaling it, thinking about it and then, you re not exhaling it you re just keeping it inside. And then later on you can use the coping mechanisms to sort of let it out. Student, male, 13 Collectively the group came up with the following definition of digital resilience: The state of being aware of positives and negatives of the internet, having awareness of yourself, your emotions and feelings, and having coping mechanisms in place to be able to bounce back from negative situations This definition, which is broadly consistent with the researchers view that resilience combines awareness of a person s likely individual response to a situation and the skills and knowledge to cope with it, emerged after the group honed their view of the concept in the course of the discussions. Whilst students initially demonstrated an arguably idealised and simplistic perception of digital resilience, perhaps indicating a lack of depth in teaching about the concept - which they were 10

12 familiar with from school - as the group conversation developed so did their perception. Ultimately they were able to identify key aspects of resilience online, including self-awareness and ability to recognise and use strategies at their disposal. Yet still seemed to be a divide within the group regarding the ability to ignore difficulties; and contradictions in terms especially when compared to the coping mechanisms given previously. 3. What levels of digital resilience exist amongst young people? In order to gauge the impact of negative online situations on the group, the researchers conducted an anonymous survey of the group in which they were asked to reflect on how long they would be affected by three different scenarios: 1. Scenario 1 You come across some violent and really gory images that have been shared by someone you don t know on Tumblr. 2. Scenario 2 You take a selfie, or a picture of yourself with a friend, post it online, and someone makes a hurtful comment 3. Scenario 3 Someone that you know on social media has written a post that you find offensive How long would the following scenarios affect you for? This wouldn t affect me Less than an hour A few hours A day A few days A week Over a week Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Very low numbers would not be affected at all or for less than an hour. The majority would be affected by these scenarios for a few hours or more, with over a week being chosen six times. Offensive content shared on social media appeared to be the situation which would affect students for the longest overall. Students gave a number of examples of offline activities which would be affected by any of these three scenarios, including sleep, social interactions, school, and sport: 11 I wouldn t feel up to doing much and I would be distracted very easily it would always pop into my mind Student, female, 14

13 When I do sport I would be thinking about it which would put me off my game Student, male, 10 I feel as if sleep would be impacted as I would stress about it Student, male, 13 Social interactions what I would speak about; school thoughts elsewhere; sleep Student, female, 18 These answers show that there is a lot of crossover between the online scenario and the offline reaction, and all areas of students offline lives appear to be affected by negative online situations. Although students admitted that they would be affected by negative online experiences, sometimes for lengthy periods of time, their use of coping mechanisms suggests that they responded proactively with the intention of solving the problem or transferring negative emotions into positive or neutral feelings 8 and could therefore be considered to be resilient to online risks. Students explained that they thought that digital resilience is something that tends to develop with time and can come naturally with experience: Experience [has an impact on digital resilience]. Not necessarily people around you but it could be yourself and how you experience things, and you might learn from your mistakes and what you ve done good or bad. Student, female, 15 The development of resilience as a consequence of learning from experience indicates that resilience is something that can be harnessed and developed in students, rather than being a natural characteristic in individuals. However another student explained that digital resilience is an emotional response rather than a conscious decision: It s more an emotion emotion takes over you and you respond naturally. Not thinking how am I going to cope with this and you just respond naturally. Researcher: So you might be like, OK this is really annoying me I need to speak to [Student] about it, rather than OK, these are my options, this is what I can do. Yeah. Student, female, 18 Whilst the students found it easy to suggest a wide variety coping mechanisms they would use to deal with online negativity, in particular the strategy suggested by the group of talking to a friend in times of difficulty, the fact that students interpret taking this action as an emotional, natural response suggests that they don t consciously think about these coping mechanisms as strategies they can employ. Whilst it is true to an extent that resilience can involve a natural reaction, emotional responses such as approaching a friend or family member for support are actually learned behaviours developed at school and home, throughout their upbringing, and developed with experience over time. 8 D Haenens et. al. (2013, p.5) 12

14 4. How can we foster digital resilience amongst young people? Building digital resilience The research aimed to gather students suggestions on how digital resilience could be built or developed in a structured way, and which environment would be most effective. Students agreed that a school setting would be their preference for a session aiming to develop digital resilience. One student drew upon her own experience of running sessions in school and explained the practical benefits of running sessions where students would already be present: We tend to find that works. And if you can do it in a fun way with like activities and things. Because I just don t really know, if it was actually going to happen, if you did it outside of school how are you going to get everyone to do it? Not every young person would go out of their way to do it outside of school. Because it s better to force them to do it, in a fun way, because they do join in [ ] it s not, like, boring. - Student, female, 18 Another student stated that a focus group-style session would be conducive to open and nonjudgemental conversation: Because you can speak to other people who you don t quite know yet, you can get to know them, and you can share stories openly without being judged Student, male, 13 When asked who would be best suited to have these conversations, the majority of students agreed that they wouldn t feel comfortable talking to a teacher. One reason for this was their perceived lack of understanding about young people s digital lives: It s a generational thing. It just is. As much as it s like, I get that they get social media as much as we do, but in terms of the internet it s a hard subject to relate to each other on. Because you use it completely differently. Student, female, 18 Students also agreed that the non-judgemental environment required to open up would be more difficult to achieve in a conventional teaching environment, as teachers may bring their preconceptions about students to the session, and because students would feel more pressure to say the right thing : I don t think they d give you as much chance to speak. And if you were talking to a teacher you d want to sound the best so you wouldn t necessarily be honest because you d want to impress them more. Because you d always want to be on the teacher s good side. Student, male, 10 Instead, students agreed that a digital resilience lesson run by people their own age would be most effective as they are able to relate to their peers. The group suggested that the following would need to be included in a session run by one of their peers: Definition of what digital resilience is Coping mechanisms, sharing experiences and discussing different things that they could do to build resilience 13

15 There would need to be an interactive activity to bring direction to an hour-long session Hands-on help, for example in a demonstration on a PC, mobile phone or tablet Students explained that in a session designed to foster digital resilience they would all feel comfortable talking to someone their own age about the risks associated with being online, such as online grooming, cyberbullying, and violent content online. Sexting was one topic which half of the group said they would feel comfortable discussing, and half said they would feel neutral (neither comfortable nor uncomfortable) towards. The group had differing opinions on whether peer-led learning was most effective when the students running the session were older or younger than the group: I think maybe slightly older, because they d still have the same experiences and more. But even people who are the same age. However I think if you are like, friends with them and they re the same age it might become less of a lesson. Student, female, 14 It could be younger. I heard the saying that you learn more from younger people or something like that. And I find like personally for me I struggle talking to people my age but I find it more easier when people are younger than me or older than me sometimes to some extent. And with like young people you ve almost experienced that so you can learn from each other. But and the fact that you can learn from what they ve experienced and tie it to your own life. It might be something completely different but you can interpret it in different ways. Student, female, 15 When asked whether these sessions would be best placed within an existing class, standalone class or during registration time, students were split on whether they would feel comfortable speaking openly with their classmates. One student stated that she would feel uncomfortable: There s always this like fear of other people because their opinions not even being judgemental, even if you said something they d be ignorant about it, they wouldn t respond or they d take it apart. [ ] and they wouldn t be open-minded, they d just think about one side of it. Student, female, 15 Students considered how digital resilience could be incorporated into the curriculum or as part of existing lessons. The group suggested that digital resilience sessions could take place in PDE (Personal Development Education) or PSHEE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education) classes. However teaching resilience in these subjects could prove problematic, as PSHEE is not a statutory requirement of the curriculum and not every school offers these lessons. The majority of students had had one-off digital skills sessions with a teacher at some point in school, as part of teaching about bullying in PDE in year 7, and in more detail in years 8 and 9. In IT in Year 9 some students had received an online safety lesson at the start of the year, covering topics like grooming, how to use internet safely, and using their personal school address effectively. Age at which to start learning about digital resilience In terms of which age would be most suitable to start learning about online risks and developing digital resilience, the group were largely split between starting in Primary school and Secondary school: 14

16 I think they should sort of teach it in year 6 [aged 11]. Cos then if they learn it in year 6 they ve got the skills they need for, if they come across that in secondary school. Student, male, 13 Younger. I find that my little brother s in year 2 now, he s like 6, 7, and he s always on his ipad and tablet, and he s always on YouTube, and he probably reads the comments and I don t know what s on the comments and what he s reading. I think, even though he might not be aware of what s going on now, in the future it might affect him, and if it was quite a younger age you d be more aware of this stuff and it d help you talk about this stuff in the future. Like, it would be less of a stigma around it. Student, female, 15 In Year 1 when pupils are aged 5 or 6 one student would have been ready to start learning about the positives as well as the negatives of the internet, instead of just being taught how to use technology: I think it should, like, start in Year 1. Cos when you re in like Reception and stuff, you know that you like want to go on laptops and stuff but you can t because you re too young and you wouldn t know how to use it. [ ] But when I was in Year 1 I never got taught, like the websites I shouldn t be visiting and how to deal with it, I was just told how to use it instead of actually affecting me on how to, erm, on the things that I shouldn t do. Student, male, 10 However others felt this was too young. One student explained that while it s important to learn about online risks from an early age, effective learning takes place when students are engaged in the topic and she would therefore recommend starting learning about this topic in Secondary school: Role of family Because as much as you should teach it when they re younger, I feel like at that age I know people go on it before, but like at that [older] age you re kind of more inclined to listen about and actually like engage in it. [ ] when they re coming in to being a teenager they might be more like up for listening and actually getting involved with sessions. I just don t know how much it would appeal to people of a younger age because they d just be playing games and doing stuff and if they do go onto websites like that they d probably tell their parents. Student, female, 18 Students were divided on whether they would feel comfortable approaching their parents to help them deal with negative situations online. Some felt that they could speak to their parents or older siblings, whereas others felt that they wouldn t. Reasons given for their reluctance to approach family members included siblings and parents knowing who you really are compared to the persona that you portray on the internet, or being worried about parents overreacting: If you re speaking to like your mum and dad they make a lot more of a bigger deal than it actually is and then definitely get in all sorts of mess. Student, male, 10 15

17 A few students identified the gap in parents and children s online skills as a reason why they wouldn t approach their parents for help: If they re really bad at technology and you want to speak to them about something, they wouldn t understand it they d just be like oh why don t you do this and that and you re just like, you can t do that on the phone, you can t just delete a message that you ve sent and they just don t understand what you re talking about and you d have to go and speak to a friend who you didn t really want to talk to Student, male, 10 But two students cautioned against underestimating their parents, stating that even if their parents didn t know the difference between social networks, it wouldn t prevent them from speaking to them if they were experiencing difficulties. Overall family members were considered to play a largely supportive role, whilst the group agreed that the most effective way to learn about digital resilience would be in as part of an interactive school-based session led by someone close to their own age. Conclusion Students demonstrated familiarity with the term resilience. As a character trait promoted by the Department for Education, students recognised the term from hearing about it in school and were able to apply it to the digital world. The group were familiar with online risks and demonstrated a high level of digital literacy when discussing how they would advise another young person experiencing potentially negative online situations. They were also able to suggest a number of practical strategies they would use to cope, including approaching a friend for support and taking part in activities they enjoy as a distraction. Despite listing these coping mechanisms, the initial discussion about digital resilience revealed misconceptions about what digital resilience, with idealised notions of independence and the ability to ignore situations without letting them affect you emerging as how students would instinctively define resilience in online situations. Students also interpreted resilience as emotional response rather than a learned behaviour, yet their comments indicated that resilience is something which can be developed. They strongly recommended a peer-led rather than teacher-led approach, and suggested that learning about resilience would be best placed within a school setting and run by someone close to their own age. As mentioned in the limitations section, the group selected to take part in this research were young people who have worked with us before and are therefore engaged in social action and online safety. Yet this group still revealed misconceptions and contradictory views of digital resilience, suggesting that these views may be more entrenched amongst young people who weren t as aware of key online safety messages. 16

18 Appendix HASEBRINK, U., LIVINGSTONE, S., HADDON, L. and OLAFSSON, K. (2009) Comparing children's online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU Kids Online. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. D HAENENS, L., VANDONINCK, S. & DONOSO, V. (2013) EU Kids Online: How to cope and build online resilience? gonlineresilience.pdf [accessed 18th April 2016] DAY, L. (Ecorys) (January 2016) YoungMinds: Resilience for the Digital World [Accessed: 12th April 2016] ATTRIDE-STIRLING, J. (2001) Thematic Networks: an Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research, Qualitative Research 1(3): FEREDAY, J. and COCHRANE, E.M. (2006) Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): HAKIM, C. (2012) Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research. Allen & Unwin. KITZINGER, J. (1994) The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 16 No. 1. MORGAN, D.L. (1997, 2nd Edition) Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage MACNAGHTEN, P., & MYERS, G. (2004). Focus Groups. In C. SEALE, G. GOBO, J.F. GUBRIUM, & D. SILVERMAN (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. (pp ). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. 17

19 Fig. 1 18

20 Fig. 2 19

21 Fig. 3 20

22 Fig. 4 21