"No kuidas sa said üldse lasta tal ennast vägistada? Ta ei olnud ju sinust nii palju suurem ja tugevam, ju sulle endale ikka natuke ka meeldis." Nii vastati ühele lapsele veebifoorumis, kust laps oli läinud toimunud vägistamise järel abi otsima.

Selles tekstis annan ülevaate sellest, kuidas lapsed ja noored veebifoorumite vahendusel seksuaalvägivalla ohvriks langemise osas abi ja tuge otsivad ning millised on sellistele postitustele järgnevad vastukajad. Meie uuringu fookus on eelkõige sellel, millist rolli mängivad vägistamismüüdid ja soostereotüübid nii teemaalgatajate kui ka vastajate käsitlustes seksuaalvägivallast, ohvritest ja toimepanijatest. Valitud tekste analüüsides kombineerisime diskursiivpsühholoogilise analüüsi ja kvalitatiivse temaatilise sisuanalüüsi võtteid. Tulemustes kirjeldame näiteks selliseid stereotüüpe nagu tõeline ohver, reaalne vägistamissituatsioon ja tõeline toimepanija. Veebifoorumis osalejate konstrueeritud repertuaarides peegelduvad valusa selgusega ühiskondlikult domineerivad väärarusaamad seksuaalvägivallast.

Selle podcasti osa tekst on eelnevalt avaldatud teaduspublikatsioonina: Eelmaa, S. & Murumaa-Mengel, M. (2020). “Kui ongi tõsi, siis ise süüdi!” Seksuaalvägivallaga seonduvad stereotüübid ühe Eesti laste ja noorte veebifoorumi teemaalgatustes ja vastustes. Mäetagused, 76, 29−62.

Several studies have shown the effect of information activism and microinterventions, such as I Am Here International, the Elves and #NAFO to combat information disorder and hate online. Nevertheless, microinterventions have yet to be conceptualised in promoting media and information literacy (MIL) and informational resilience. This study positions microinterventions as information activism tools and empirically tests microinterventions in the context of higher education. Using an action research approach at a university MIL training course, we aim to understand what types of information activism are used and how the collective interventions affected the participants' MIL-s. We construct a typology of information activism roles and corresponding study tasks: the Worker Bees (focused on microprotections), the Meerkats (microaffirmations) and Lions (microchallenges). These different types surfaced in each participant over a cycle of exhaustion, disappointment, group support, feedback and encouragement that we dubbed the phoenixing cycle.

The aim of this article is to explore the audience and moderator types on Instagram's misogynist content exposé pages (MCEPs)-where people share and shame screenshots depicting gendered online hate, harassment, and men's sexual entitlement. We have framed our study with concepts like refracted publics, imagined audiences, and shaming as a social practice, and we set out to look for communicative shaming practices beyond the theoretically well-established reintegrative/disintegrative distinction. Analysis of qualitative online interviews with the moderators of MCEPs (n = 6), combined with both qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the posts' captions (n = 100) and comments (n = 1325) helps us understand the mechanisms, types, and aims of online shamings and dive deeper into understanding the different roles people take in these communicative practices. Results of this study present five main types of shamings and the linked moderator and audience types: pedagogic shaming (moderators as Educators, audiences as Instructors), denunciatory shaming (Judges and Angry Mobbers), recreational shaming (Entertainers and Jokesters), participative shaming (Community Builders and Support Squadders) and reflective shaming (Looking Glasses and Mirrors). Theoretical types can be combined and modified in practice, based on the strategies the moderators are using, aims of communication, and specific constellations of audiences.

Millised võimalused avanevad uurijale, kui aeg ja ruum on uuringus osalejate jaoks paindlikud tegurid? Kuidas kombineerida online’i ja offline’i, et paremini mõista inimeste igapäevaelu, tajutud tähendusi, väärtushinnanguid ja tõekspidamisi? Kuidas viia läbi Zoomi-intervjuud? Kas fookusgruppi saab üldse veebipõhiselt korraldada, kaotamata meetodi peamisi tugevusi? Kuidas pakkuda digitalletavas süsteemis uuringus osalejatele anonüümsust ja konfidentsiaalsust? Kuidas leevendada „küsitlusväsimust“ ja pakkuda mängurõõmu? Need on vaid mõned küsimused, millele siinses peatükis põhjalikumalt keskendun ja vastuseid otsin. Peatükk algab ülevaatega sünkroonsetest ja asünkroonsetest kvalitatiivsetest intervjuudest, mis võivad toimuda ekraani vahendusel nii suuliselt kui ka kirjalikult. Sünkroonsus tähendab siin kontekstis seda, et uurija(d) ja osaleja(d) on intervjuusituatsioonis ühel ajal, tegemist on voogsuhtlusega. Asünkroonsus viitab aga sellele, et iga osapool valib endale sobiva tempo ning intervjuu on suuremal või vähemal määral vaba fikseeritud ajalistest raamidest ja tavapärase intervjuusituatsiooni kohesusest, tegemist on viivissuhtlusega. Järgneb alapeatükk sellest, mida võiks pidada silmas veebi vahendusel toimuvate rühmaintervjuude puhul. Kuna kvalitatiivsetes uuringutes püütakse sageli kombineerida erinevaid andmekogumisvõtteid, mis annaksid uuritavast mitmekülgsema ülevaate, tutvustan peatüki teises pooles intervjuudes kasutatavaid erinevaid projektiivtehnikaid ja loovuurimismeetodite võimalusi ja piiranguid, mis võivad esineda veebi vahendusel tehtavates või veebifenomene käsitlevates kvalitatiivsetes uuringutes.

Several studies have established that female journalists experience (sexual) harassment and online abuse considerably more than their male colleagues. Understandably, this has resulted in a gap in research – male journalists’ experiences with abusive online communication have not yet been thoroughly studied. This paper seeks to understand how abusive communication is contextualised and defined by male journalists in the context of hegemonic masculinity, and to explore which coping strategies are employed to overcome such experiences. From qualitative in-depth interviews with male journalists (n = 15), we found that participants considered different forms of abusive online communication from readers/sources a normalised practice, “feedback” that one must just ignore or overcome. Experiences are interpreted predominantly in the frame of hegemonic (complicit) masculinity, but the results also indicate that shifts in these rigid norms are emerging and can be embraced when acknowledged and supported by surrounding structures.

In 2012, I was planning to tackle the subject of arguably the “worst” of the online nightmare audiences for my PhD project, aiming to study young people’s perceptions and experiences with online predators (Murumaa-Mengel, 2015). Knowing that face-to-face interviews could become stressful and awkward if carried out in the traditional question-answer format with rigid researcher-participant roles, I was seeking a method that would give participants editorial control, the opportunity to sort their thoughts in peace, have time for expressing themselves, and collaborate in the interpretation of the data. This short article is based on my experiences in exploring the potential of creative research methods (CRMs) in the context of sensitive topics. Visual abstract is available HERE.

While the excessive use of social media is associated with many difficulties in daily life (including mental health problems), the topic can be overemphasised in the media, and there is no reason to consider social media use in itself as the root cause of problems in daily life.

As social life and communication move increasingly online, we have experienced the expansion of online shaming – different forms of (semi)public cross-platform condemnation of people and their actions by (mass) online audiences. Online shamings can be analysed as combinations of reintegrative (shame-correct-forgive) and disintegrative (shame-stigmatise-expel) social sanctioning practices, usually focusing the ‘serious’ disciplinary shaming on the behaviour of the offender. We propose that equal attention should be given to what we have termed ‘recreational shaming’ – humour-based playful collective shaming that often occurs via online platforms, seemingly just for the sake of shaming, motivated mainly by social belonging needs and entertainment gratification.

By combining the results of standardised content analysis of Facebook recreational shaming groups (n = 65) and in-depth qualitative interviews with the ‘modmins’ of the groups (n = 8) we will give an overview of what is being shamed, how groups and modministrators create and enforce rules and what is the socio-cultural perceived meaning of this practice. We distinguish three spheres of recreational shaming that ‘frame the shame’ and demonstrate how recreational online shaming is often more about the self than the other – me performing the act of shaming for entertainment value, to belong in a group. Additionally, we introduce how shaming is used as a self-reflexive tool for behaviour-correction or base knowledge for dominant tastes.

The episode is based on this academic publication:

Murumaa-Mengel, M., & Lott, K. (2023). ‘Recreational shaming groups of Facebook: Content, rules and modministrators’ perspectives’. Convergence, OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231176184