A recent UK parliamentary inquiry into online child protection prompted a resurgence of moral panics about children and adolescents’ Internet use, despite the fact that little empirical evidence of actual harm is brought to bear in public and policy discourses. This article makes a key contribution to the field by reviewing the available evidence about the scale and scope of online harms from across a range of disciplines and identifying key obstacles in this research area. The findings are based on a review of 271 empirical studies. We identified three main types of harms: health-related harms as a result of using pro-eating disorders, self-harm or pro-suicide websites, sex-related harms such as Internet-initiated sexual abuse of minors, and cyber-bullying. Presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, 2013, London.

1. Evidence
on
the
extent
of
harms
experienced
by
children
as
a
result
of
online
risks:
A
cri:cal
synthesis
of
research
Dr
Vera
Slavtcheva-­‐Petkova,
University
of
Chester
Dr
Victoria
Nash,
Oxford
Internet
Ins:tute,
University
of
Oxford
Dr
Monica
Bulger,
Oxford
Internet
Ins:tute,
University
of
Oxford

2. The
backdrop
of
moral
panic

3. •Frequent
confla:on
of
risk
and
harm
•Depic:on
of
children
as
essen:ally
vulnerable
and
in
need
of
protec:on
•Overwhelming
focus
on
sexual
content
and
sexual
harm
Policy
Context

4. Methods
• Systema:c
review.
Search
conducted
via
all
available
databases
accessed
through
University
of
Oxford
• Keywords:
“harm
AND
Internet
AND
children”,
“harm
AND
Internet
AND
adolescents”,
“harm
AND
Internet
AND
minors”,
“harm
AND
Internet
AND
teens”
and
“harm
AND
Internet
AND
teenagers”
• Categories
for
inclusion:
empirical
work,
published
in
peer-­‐reviewed
journal,
main
focus
of
study
was
young
people
(aged
under
18),
addressed
Internet
use,
discussed
harm
related
to
online
interac:ons
• 271
studies,
published
between
1997-­‐2011
• 148
ar:cles
met
criteria
for
inclusion,
coded
using
an
adapted
version
of
the
EU
Kids
Online
framework

5. Categories
of
harms
• Health-­‐related
harms:
63
ar:cles
• Sex-­‐related
harms:
49
ar:cles
• Cyberbullying
–
36
ar:cles
• Categorized
thema:cally
aaer
ini:al
and
then
focused
coding
• Focus
on:
opera:onaliza:on,
scope
and
scale
of
harm
Several
harms
referred
to
in
policy
debate
did
not
demonstrate
a
strong
research
base:
• Harms
from
commercial/consumer
contact,
• Privacy
viola:ons,
• Restric:ons
to
freedom
of
expression/informa:on

6. Opera:onaliza:on
of
harm
• Assump:on
that
risk
and
harm
are
equal
terms
• Majority
of
studies
fail
to
opera:onalize
harm
• Even
within
a
topic,
defini:ons
of
harm
differ,
so
difficult
to
assess
true
scale
• In
health-­‐related
research:
1. Defined
in
44.5%
of
the
studies
2. Oaen
opera:onalized
in
terms
of
par:cular
harms:
self-­‐
mu:la:on,
self-­‐injury,
cuing
3. Most
common
defini:on:
self-­‐harm
(75%
of
all
studies
that
define
the
term).
Explana:ons
of
what
self-­‐harm
means
are
rare.
Example:
“a
form
of
ac:vely
managed
self-­‐destruc:ve
behavior
that
is
not
intended
to
be
lethal”
(Murray
et
al.,
2008)

7. Scope
of
health
harms
The
propor:ons
represent
the
scope
of
harms
as
reported
in
the
research
studies
–
they
are
not
indica:ve
of
the
actual
scope
and
scale
of
harms.

8. Scale
of
Harm
• Majority
discuss
perceived
or
poten:al
harm
(e.g.,
textual
analyses
of
pro-­‐ea:ng
disorder
websites
or
surveys
on
percep:ons
of
users)
rather
than
evidence
of
actual
harm
(documented
by
prac::oners
or
evidenced
by
case
studies).
• Excep:on:
suicide
case
studies,
which
describe
how
suicides
are
facilitated
or
incited
• Address
poten:ally
harmful
content,
focusing
on
poten:ally
worrisome
messaging,
but
lijle
evidence
of
its
effects
–
may
increase
but
not
cause
ED
• “More
research
is
needed
to
determine
if
these
websites
do
harm,
and
if
so,
to
whom
and
in
what
form”
(Talbot,
2010)
• Disagreement
over
the
role
of
“support”
websites

9. Discussion
• Why
are
these
studies
useful?
-­‐
Iden%fying
not
just
who
is
at
risk,
but
who
is
harmed.
• What
other
important
research
ques:ons
remain?
-­‐
Does
the
focus
on
risk
mean
we
may
miss
possible
benefit?,
-­‐
Do
we
pay
too
li?le
a?en%on
to
personal
and
circumstan%al
factors
which
enable
some
individuals
to
cope
be?er
than
others?
• What
are
the
limita:ons
of
‘harm’
research?
-­‐
failure
to
opera%onalize
‘harm’
-­‐
Over-­‐reliance
on
surveys
and
self-­‐reported
measures
-­‐
Imbalance
between
research
areas
-­‐
Lack
of
research
on
salient
policy
concerns

10. Conclusions
&
Policy
Implica:ons
• Severe
harms
rare,
but
poten:al
for
more
minor
harms
rela:vely
high
• Interven:ons
should
be
evidence-­‐based;
but
in
some
areas,
evidence
s:ll
lacking
• ‘One
size
fits
all’
policy
measures
unlikely
to
be
effec:ve
• Focus
on
harm
as
well
as
risk
needed
to
develop
more
informed
and
effec:ve
measures

11. Thank
you!
Vera
Slatcheva-­‐Petkova
v.petkova@chester.ac.uk
hjp://www.chester.ac.uk/media/staff
Victoria
Nash
@VickiNashOII
hjp://victoriajnash.tumblr.com
Monica
Bulger
@literacyonline
hjp://www.monicabulger.com