The critical review is evaluation of the article and to summarise certain arguments of a text and be critical in assessing the arguments. It has been mentioned that it is required for the critical review to comprise descriptive writing to sum up the text, although it is significant that the review should be more than just a descriptive. It is essential for the critical reviewer to balance between the reviewer’s opinion and the author of the article’s point of view (University of Leicester, 2009).
The article chosen is the journal written by Balakrishnan (2015) with the title of Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: The roles of gender, age and Internet frequency, which was published by the computers in human behaviour publication.
The study actually research on the young adult’s experiences in cyberbullying which the method used was quantitative, online survey. Based on the findings, the cyberbullying still happening even though after the school years.
The female have the higher number of became the cyberbully and even the cyber victim. While in terms of age, the researcher found that the younger respondents tend to involved in cyberbullying rather than the older participants. In terms of the internet frequency, those who spent between 2 until 5 hours online tend to engage in cyberbullying either as the victim or bully. Finally, the correlation of cyberbullying and cyber victim found significant as there is possibility of the victim became the bully and vice versa. Generally it is concluded that even after the school years, the cyberbullying can still happen to the users of the social media and email users.
The topic of the article is “cyberbullying among youth adults in Malaysia: The role of gender, age and internet frequency”. Basically, the topic fits the result of the study and answering the research questions. At the same time, the topic is not too general and really specified on the aims of the research, which ease the reader on what to expect on the contents of the articles and avoid from mislead the readers.
Although the hypotheses were not stated on the article, the research questions were being identified. Thus the reader easily able to identify the expectation of the study. There were 6 research questions, which are:
(i) What is the cyberbullying prevalence rate among the young adults in Malaysia?
(ii) Is there any correlation between cyber-victims and cyberbullies?
(iii) Is there any gender difference in the frequency with which the males and females engage in cyberbullying activities?
(iv) Is there any difference in the frequency with which people of varying ages engage in cyberbullying activities?
(v) Is there any difference in the frequency with which people with varying Internet usage engage in cyberbullying activities?
(vi) Do gender, age and Internet frequency predict cyberbullying activities?
The research questions were clearly stated the purpose of conducting the study. At the same time, the researcher stated the literature review supported his preferences of choosing the research questions which ease the reader to understand more on why the researcher had the need to conduct the study. At the same time, by stated the previous study on the relationship between cyber-victims and cyberbullies, the gender differences in cyberbullying activities and others research questions stated, it is easier to replicate the similar studies, but as for the researcher, he did the study by assimilated all the purpose of the studies mentioned and conducted the study in the context of Malaysian young adult, which the result might be different than the study conducted that he mentioned at the literature review.
The data was administered through the online survey with the criteria of young adults between 17 until 35 years old. The link of the questionnaire was being shared through one of the trending social media during the year of 2014-2-15, which was Facebook. It is agreeable that online survey is beneficial for the researcher in terms of convenience and as illustrated by Taylor (2000), online surveys actually enable the researcher to reach large number of respondents with the criteria required by the researcher in a short range of time, even though the distance between the researcher and the samples are quite separated by the geographical location. Also, by posted through Facebook, it was easier to gather the respondents as a lot of people used Facebook and log in to Facebook daily. It was more helpful when the researcher seek help from 17 students from the course of Statistical Application for Information Technology in University of Malaya to post on their Facebook for more participants.
Although, the consequences of online survey is the samples might not feel stimulated to give specified and truthful answers as the possibility of being uncomfortable answering the questionnaires and there is a chance that the respondents may not be mindful of their reasons for the answers given due to lack of memory on the questions given and even due to boredom (Evans & Mathur, 2005). Thus the reliability of the data gathered is being questioned due to less authentic answers.
Also, the criteria of the young adults between 17 until 35 years old cannot be generalised as the victim of cyberbullying is not just affecting people between 17 to 35 years old, even those people below 17 years old also involved in cyberbullying as the cyberbully or even as the victim. Although, the reasons why the researcher did not concentrating on the students age below 17 was due to there were several studies with the sample of students and quite low amount of the studies that conducted with the respondents of young adult especially above 20 years old. On the other hand, there is also possibility that the cyberbullying can occur to the age group above 35 years old, which the researcher should take that as consideration.
Based on the demographic profiles, 78 people were from the range age of 17-20, 259 people were from the age of 21-25 and 56 people were between the ages of 26-30. From the data, most of the respondents were from the range age of 21-25, which the core cause of this result was due to the respondents gained from the 17 students of University of Malaya. Although the result of the bias among the age range of 21-25 has higher amount of the respondents than the others and it is agreeable that the outcome is beyond control of the researchers, although it is clearly shown that the results and findings of the study was more towards that specific age range rather than other age range, thus it is more generalise toward that age group.
From the discussion elaborated about the prevalence rate of cyberbullying in Malaysia, it was stated that the number of cyberbullying among the young adults were not as high as stated and agreed by other studies. Although the researcher already expected the low amount of the involvement due to young adult, yet there was still some involvement of these age group in cyberbullying which others should be aware as cyberbullying does not restrict only to below 17 years old students only or above 35 years old. While, there is a chance that the result might be differ if the age group is below 17 Years old and above 35 years old. For the first hypothesis and research question, there was no recommendation on the future study of the possibility of the other age group to be involved in cyberbullying.
Under the second research question, the researcher stated that there was a positive relationship between the cyberbullying and cyber victim. The victim tend to be the bully as when they were being bullied as the researcher stated bullied through email, they could easily replied back. Although, the study conducted on 2014-2015, which meant that the Facebook already trending and for the site like Facebook, there was other forms of bullying such as the expose of false information through the status, hacking the Facebook account and uploaded humiliating pictures or status, etc. The bullying through email can be easily cope and handled by the victim alter from the victim to the cyberbully, but the bullying occur on the Facebook might have different correlation between the cyberbullying and cyber victim. Thus, the recommendation on this alternative cyberbullying site should be investigated.
In terms of gender differences, the female has higher number of became the victim as well as the bully than male. For this, the researched made appropriate recommendation for the future researcher to identify the reasons of cyberbullying for enable the comparison to be made for the certain organisation to help to reduce the number of cyberbullying once knowing the real motive of cyberbullying.
The researcher stated that the older the person, the less tendency of the participants to be involved in cyberbullying due to maturity and wiser. Although, it is quite critical and bias with the statement as from the study conducted by Pew Research as stated by Hegman (2014), 40% of American adults did experienced and encountered of cyberbullying, which usually the forms of cyberbullying they experienced were name-calling, threats and humiliation. This proves that cyberbullying also happened to the adults.
The last findings from the researcher stated that those who spent from 2 until 5 hours daily on their social network scored higher in cyberbullying than those who were not. As interaction tend to be made through social media and email during those days, everyone can access them anytime they demand. The findings supported with the previous studies from other researchers to make it more valid.
Basically, the findings covered the research questions stated and elaborated all the answers in the discussion section.
The researchers elaborated certain aspects that needs to be covered by the future researchers such as the generalisation samples, the causes of cyberbullying, the impacts of cyberbullying and what should be done to handle cyberbullying. Although the recommendation only applied for the future researcher, not for the readers or audiences to take action regards on the issues.
The conclusion section was being combined with the discussion sections. Although the combination can lead to confusion, the conclusion was well-written and reflect back to the research question and the purpose of the study. Some of the readers on the other hand might feel confused with the combination and prefer the sections to be separated.