Management of Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study of a Nigerian University

Cyberbullying problem has become a global concern in universities. In Nigerian universities, the concern appears to be blamed on the lack of cyberbullying prevention and management strategies. The purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to explore the policy decision makers’ recommendations for the development of cyberbullying management strategies for the staff and students of a Nigerian university. The three theories used to guide the study were Glasser’s (1998) choice theory, Bandura’s (1986) theory of moral disengagement, and Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) social ecological theory. Data for the study were obtained from three sources: interviews, documents, and archival records of the university. Seven participants, all members of the Committee of Provosts, Deans, and Directors (COPD), were used for the study. The constant comparative method was used to analyze the data. Three major themes emerged as findings in the study: cyberbullying awareness, cyberbullying situation in the university, and the university cyberbullying management policy. These findings may help to make university policy makers aware of the significance of cyberbullying policy in Nigerian universities. The findings may also help to make the university management leadership consider the development of research-based cyberbullying awareness raising training programs and cyberbullying management policy for the staff and students.

Cyberbullying can be conceptualized as the intentional use of a combination of electronic resources like the Internet, mobile phones, and any other electronic communication device to repeatedly taunt, hurt, embarrass, and possibly harm others (Peter & Petermann, 2018) who may not be in a position to put up an immediate defense (Smith et al., 2008). The problem of cyberbullying is spreading globally as more and more people have access to the Internet, social media, mobile telecommunications devices, and other forms of electronic communications systems (Okoiye et al., 2015). Cyberbullying has become a concern in many societies (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011;Chisholm, 2014;Rivituso, 2014). The impact of cyberbullying, beyond the direct consequences to those involved, cuts across schools, universities, homes, and workplaces (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011).
There has been evidence of widespread of cyberbullying in many universities to a level of concern as noted by Cowie and Myers (2016) and Faucher et al. (2014). Researchers have indicated different cyberbullying prevalence rates for different colleges/universities around the globe. Lee (2017) reported between 2 and 17.7% prevalence rates of cyberbullying for young adults of African American extraction in a US college sample. Dredge et al. (2014) reported 51% cyberbullying prevalence rate in an Australian college sample. Francisco et al. (2015) reported cyberbullying prevalence rate of 28% in a Portuguese college sample. Bevilacqua et al. (2017) reported between 2 and 4.5% prevalence rate in an English college sample. Khine et al. (2020) reported 40% prevalence rate in a Myanmar university sample. Ndiege et al. (2020) reported 49.7% and 75.8% prevalence rates respectively for perpetration and victimization in a Kenyan private university sample.
In Nigeria, the trend of research about cyberbullying prevention and management has not been any different from what obtained in the USA, Canada, and Europe, that is, studies have been focused more on the nursery, primary, and secondary schools than the universities (Okoiye et al., 2015;Olumide et al., 2016). At the time of writing this study report, the researcher could access only five studies that examined the different aspects cyberbullying in the Nigerian institutions of learning. In three of these five studies Olumide et al. (2016), Okoiye et al. (2015), and Oyewusi and Orolade (2014) examined the cyberbullying phenomenon in different Nigerian secondary schools. Olumide et al. (2016) reported a 25% cyberbullying prevalence rate in the Nigerian secondary schools' samples they studied. Okoiye et al. (2015) concluded that the prevalence of cyberbullying in Nigerian secondary schools had taken a new dimension with the advent of information technology devices. Oyewusi and Orolade (2014) noted that cyberbullying was an emerging phenomenon perceived as malicious by a few in Nigerian secondary schools. Two of the five studies noted earlier were conducted in Nigerian universities by Nwosu et al. (2018), and Adomi et al. (2016). Adomi et al. (2016) reported 80% cyberbullying prevalence rate in one Nigerian university sample and Nwosu et al. (2018) reported 50% cyberbullying prevalence rate in another Nigerian university sample.
The prevalence and problem of cyberbullying is relatively new in Nigeria when compared with the US and European countries. Oyewusi and Orolade (2014) noted that, the level of awareness of the cyberbullying phenomenon and its adverse consequences was still low in Nigerian institutions of learning. This argument was echoed by Adomi et al. (2016), who found that about 20% of the Nigerian university participants they studied were unaware of the phenomenon of cyberbullying. Nwosu et al. (2018) also noted that about 43% of the participants they studied in another Nigerian university were unaware of the phenomenon of cyberbullying. Aggregating these findings would put the level of ignorance of the cyberbullying phenomenon in Nigerian universities at about 36.5%. Ignorance of the cyberbullying phenomenon by some participants in the Nwosu et al. (2018) and Adomi et al. (2016) studies made it difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the cyberbullying prevalence rate given in the researches. However, these studies did bring to the fore that as of 2018, some university students in Nigeria did not have knowledge of the cyberbullying phenomenon and the complexities and consequences of its manifestation in an environment. These five studies show that there have been very few research studies on the cyberbullying phenomenon in Nigerian schools and universities. Additionally, these studies spoke to the significance of not doing cyberbullying research studies in isolation of the ways and means to prevent and control the negative effects of the phenomenon in Nigerian schools and universities.
An analysis of the findings of some studies such as Myers and Cowie (2017), Lampman (2012), Sallee and Diaz (2012), Bauman and Baldasare (2015), Selkie et al. (2016), Cassidy et al. (2017), and Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018) showed that anyone could be a likely target of cyberbullying irrespective of sexual orientation, belief, class, status (cyberbullying victims, cyberbullies, cyberbully-victims, and bystanders), or level in the university community. Cassidy et al. (2017) recommended the development and implementation of research-based cyberbullying prevention policies and programs in the universities, to help students, faculties, and administrators have a better understanding of what constituted cyberbullying, and also be knowledgeable about the causes and consequences of the phenomenon. The authors also suggested that universities should have an official channel for reporting and documenting cases of cyberbullying and a plan to provide support and counseling any time there is an incident on campus. Beyond the management of the cyberbullying victims, Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018) highlighted the need to also manage the cyberbullies and cyberbully-victims because the cyberbullying phenomenon also impacted on these two groups in terms of stress, anxiety levels, depression, and mental well-being. Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018) recommended education on the responsible use of the Internet and modern electronic communication technologies, cyberbullying awareness seminars and workshops, and the development of research-based cyberbullying management policies as some cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. They also recommended capacity building programs for reporting incidents and cases of cyberbullying, anger management and empathy training, and how to seek psychological help as other strategies for cyberbullying management in the universities. Campbell (2016) made some suggestions about the content of a cyberbullying (and other forms of bullying) prevention and management strategies based on Smith et al. (2008) analyses of school anti-bullying policies under four headings; concise conceptualization of bullying behavior, reporting and response procedures to incidents of bullying, documentation of bullying incidents, communicating and review of policy, and bullying prevention strategies. Campbell (2016) noted that if the definition of bullying was not precise and the language used in a policy is not clear and to the point, the policy would be practically and legally deficient. The procedures and processes for reporting and responding to incidents must be clear and unambiguous in any policy to be able to support the implementation of bullying management strategies developed by an institution (Campbell, 2016). It was suggested in the Campbell (2016) study that anti-bullying polices ought to capture the significance of documenting incidents, communicating the policy to information and action addressees, and regular update of the policy at stipulated intervals to ensure currency because bullying manifestations always evolve in different ways as newer technologies are developed. The anti-bullying policies must not focus only on sanctions of perpetrators of cyberbullying but should 1 3 also capture strategies that encourage peaceful co-existence, capacity building for staff and students to strengthen healthy networking among people (Campbell, 2016).

Conceptual Framework for the Study
Many cyberbullying management strategies, policies, and programs have been developed without recourse to conceptual/theoretical framework (Bauman & Yoon, 2014). Experts in the cyberbullying field have noted that the absence of a conceptual or theoretical foundation for these strategies, policies, and programs, is one of the reasons why these intervention and prevention programs do not have strong impact in tackling the problem of the cyberbullying phenomenon (Swearer et al., 2010). In this study, Glasser's (1998) choice theory, Bandura's (1986) theory of moral disengagement, and Bronfenbrenner's (1977) social ecological theory were used to guide the research. Glasser's (1998) choice theory explained in part that all human behaviors (acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology) are by choice. Glasser's (1998) choice theory was one of the models used to guide the understanding of the significance and implications (for the university management leadership) of the investigation of the cyberbullying situation in the university which was recommended by the participants. Tanrikulu (2014) examined cyberbullying from a theoretical perspective using Glasser's (1998) choice theory. Tanrikulu's (2014) rationale was that, the Reality Therapy theory (Corey, 2009), which was developed from Choice theory, supported the analyses of cyberbullying behaviors and the findings could be used for the development of intervention programs. Tanrikulu (2014) did his analysis using the cyberbullying behaviors linked with the basic premise of the choice theory in which it was contended that human behaviors came under four groups described by Glasser (1998); needs, quality world, total behavior, and successful-unsuccessful identity. From the prism of choice theory, people who were unable to meet their needs, like in a relationship, or belonging to a group or family, were more likely to exhibit cyberbullying behaviors (Tanrikulu, 2014). When there was a wide gap between a person's quality world (aspiration or dream) and the real world (exact present situation) abnormal behavior like cyberbullying was used to fill the gap to satisfy a person's needs for power and entertainment (Tanrikulu, 2014). Tanrikulu (2014) noted that cyberbullying behavior could be said to be like total behavior (doing, feeling, thinking, and physiology) described in choice theory because it was deliberate and was controlled by the perpetrator. People who had unsuccessful identity were those that failed to take responsibility to satisfy their needs and would rather resort to illegal behaviors like cyberbullying to meet those needs like self-worth, loving and being loved, and belonging, but those with successful identity were the exact opposite from the perspective of choice theory (Tanrikulu, 2014). Glasser's (1998) choice theory is appropriate for the comparison of cyberbullying behaviors among perpetrators, victims, bullyvictims, and bystanders. For example, people who have wide needs-gap in their lives are likely to be involved in cyberbullying. Tanrikulu's (2014) analyses showed that choice theory could support the identification of cyberbullying behaviors in a setting and could help support the development of intervention measures.

Moral Disengagement Theory
The theory of moral disengagement was introduced by Bandura (1986) as an extension of his social learning theory and the broad social cognitive theory (Cahill, 1987). In the moral disengagement theory, Bandura (1986), contended that it was through selfregulatory abilities that transgressive behaviors were usually checked by self-condemnation of expected consequences or outcomes that conflict with internalized moral standards (Moore et al., 2012). According to Bandura (1986Bandura ( , 1999, the self-regulatory ability fails when moral disengagement mechanisms disable cognitive links between transgressive behavior and the self-sanctioning that prevent abnormal behavior, which explains why some people can do harm (like cyberbullying) to others without feeling any cognitive stress or guilt. Self-regulatory ability refers to internal controls and guidance (internal standards and self-sanctions) that determine a person's actions, feelings, and thoughts (Bandura, 1989(Bandura, , 1999(Bandura, , 2016. Bandura (1999Bandura ( , 2016 identified eight moral disengagement mechanisms that support unethical behaviors: moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous/palliative comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregarding (distortion/ignoring/minimizing/misconstruing) the consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame.
Moral justification refers to cognitive reconstruction of unethical behavior to look morally, socially, and personally acceptable so that harm could be done, and euphemistic labelling is the making of harmful conduct look respectable by using language, so that a person can reduce his/ her responsibility for acting in an unacceptable manner (Bandura, 1999(Bandura, , 2016. Advantageous comparison is like euphemistic labelling except it is used in a comparison with another activity to clear the mind of unethical behavior; displacement of responsibility means acting in an unethical manner knowing full well that others would take responsibility for that action; and diffusion of responsibility is when a person's unethical behavior is obscured by the platform or group responsibility hence diffusing personal accountability (Bandura, 1999(Bandura, , 2016.

3
Disregard or distortion of consequences refers to not having regard for or distorting the consequences of one's unethical action, thus making it easier to hurt others when the consequence was not immediately visible (Bandura, 1999(Bandura, , 2016. Dehumanization refers to the striping of others of their human qualities in the mind so as to be able to harm them without the feeling of any guilt or stress (Bandura, 1992); and attribution of blame has to do with blaming others like the victims for the atrocities a person has committed (Bandura, 1999(Bandura, , 2016. Bandura's (1986) moral disengagement theory can be used to reduce cyberbullying or guide the management of cyberbullying if the relationship between moral disengagement mechanisms and cyberbullying in an environment was well understood and explained to a target audience (Bussey et al., 2015;McAlister, 2001). Thus, in the study, the Bandura (1986) moral disengagement theory was used to guide the understanding of how to reduce and manage cyberbullying in the university.

Social Ecological Theory
The ecology of human development model was developed by Bronfenbrenner (1977) to propose a framework for understanding the different levels of a social system and how the characteristics of developing individuals and the environment interact to influence how the individuals within this system grow and develop. The model is also known as the social ecological model in the traditional bullying and cyberbullying arena of discourse (Espelage, 2014). The central argument in Bronfenbrenner's (1977) social ecological model is that, to understand human development, it required the examination of "multipersons systems of interaction" in a setting and or settings taking cognizance of aspects of the environment beyond the immediate setting of the phenomenon of interest or the developing person (p.514). Thus, the social ecological model helped the understanding of human development (inclusive of activities and behaviors) as influenced by different environmental systems settings. Bronfenbrenner's (1977) conceptualization of a setting referred to space, time, activity, and roles with reference to individuals; that is the geographic location with its description and features in which people engage in particular activities in particular roles (student, friend, teacher, parent, administrator, staff, etc.) for specified time periods.
There are five systems used to explain the dimensions of the social ecological model: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977), and the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The microsystem referred to the intricacy of interactions between a developing individual and his/her immediate setting like home, school, and workplace; mesosystem is the interrelations between microsystems; and exosystem is an extension of the mesosystem but external to the immediate setting of the developing individual even though contributed or influenced his/ her immediate setting like hospitals, airports, supply chains of goods and services, informal social networks, and mass media (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Macrosystem refers to the architecture from which structures and activities within a culture or subculture were derived formally like laws and regulations, customs, and informally like ideologies, tradition or unwritten practices. The chronosystem has to do with interactions between the developing individual and time and changes, and how these interactions influenced behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1994;Espelage, 2014). Espelage (2014) used the social ecological model to examine, organize, and inform the understanding of how the characteristics of individuals interact with environmental contexts or components to encourage or prevent victimization or perpetration of bullying from a developmental perspective at the different levels of the social system (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and the chronosystem) and explained how interactions at each level influenced bullying behavior. Even though the Espelage (2014) study focused on traditional bullying, the findings could very well be applied to cyberbullying in the context of social ecological theory and the universities. Thus, the social ecological theory could be used to guide a traditional bullying and cyberbullying case study research.

Aims and Scope of the Study
Many researchers that focused on cyberbullying studies in the universities did not directly explore the management strategies or prevention and control of the cyberbullying problem. However, some recommendations on the prevention and management of cyberbullying were made in some of these studies such as Chisholm (2014), Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018), and Sallee and Diaz (2012). Cowie and Myers (2016) observed that many universities did not have cyberbullying prevention and management strategies and even when there were policies, these policies were not implemented to guarantee enough protection from the consequences of cyberbullying. The general problem of the study was that many universities had strategies governing on-campus conduct, which were not designed for cyberbullying management (Cowie & Myers, 2016).
In Nigeria, a high prevalence rate and a low level of awareness of cyberbullying and its consequences in the universities had been reported by Adomi et al. (2016) and Nwosu et al. (2018). The specific problem of the study was that the lack of cyberbullying management strategies had led to a high prevalence rate of cyberbullying in Nigerian universities (Adomi et al., 2016;Nwosu et al., 2018). The specific problem of the inquiry compelled the need to explore how university leaders and policy decision makers could develop cyberbullying management strategies in a Nigerian university.
The purpose of this qualitative exploratory single case study was to explore the policy decision makers' recommendations for the development of cyberbullying management strategies for the staff and students of a Nigerian university. The central research question of the study was R1-What are the Committee of Provosts, Deans, and Directors (COPD) members' recommendations for the development of cyberbullying management strategies for the staff and students to help control the high prevalence rate of cyberbullying in a southwestern Nigerian university?
The report of the study may make leaders and policy decision makers to be more conscious about the need for the development of centralized cyberbullying management strategies or a research-based policy for the prevention and control of the cyberbullying in Nigerian universities. The findings of this study may help to increase the awareness and knowledge of the university leaders and policy decision makers about the cyberbullying situation in a Nigerian university. The findings of the study could also cause the development of cyberbullying management strategies or policy for the staff and students of Nigerian universities to help check the problem of cyberbullying in the campuses. The research may also add to the existing body of knowledge on cyberbullying prevention and management and would likely instigate researchers to carry out further studies on the subject of cyberbullying in Nigeria.

Method
Qualitative research has been used in studies concerning cyberbullying and its management in schools, organizations, institutions, and colleges/universities around the world as can be seen in Rafferty and Ven (2014), Rivituso (2014), and Young et al. (2017). Qualitative research supports the case study report presentation and also the rich description of the research process and outcomes (Maykut & Morehouse, 2005), which gives the audience enough information for the comprehension of the research results.

Qualitative Method and Case Study Design
The qualitative research method and the exploratory single case study research design were used to conduct the study. The determination of the appropriateness of the research approach to be used for a study depended, to a large extent, on the ontological and epistemological positions of the researcher and how the understanding of what is researched is to be achieved in terms of methodology (Tuli, 2010). The qualitative method was appropriate for the study because the method derived from constructivism ontology and interpretivism epistemology, which respectively assumed the existence of multiple realities and multiple understandings or knowledge as noted in Guba and Lincoln (1998) and Lee (2012). This assumption is aligned with the researcher's philosophical position, constructivism ontology and interpretivism epistemology.
Qualitative research usually involved a researcherresearched partnership that could bring about deeper insights into the phenomenon of study and rich and indepth data (Ulin et al., 2004). The flexibility of qualitative research gives inquirers the opportunity of comparing findings of different studies of similar phenomena of interest to arrive at better conclusions (Ulin et al., 2004). The flexibility of qualitative research also allows the participants to come to terms with how they saw things as they interacted with researchers, and knowledge is constructed through what the participants experienced and shared (Cohen et al., 2000). Another reason for the appropriateness of the qualitative research approach for the study was that the approach allowed the researcher to serve as the main instrument of the research and be involved in the whole inquiry process (Byrne, 2001). The approach also allowed for the exploration and understanding of the research problem from the perspective of the participants in their natural setting (Yin, 2018). Qualitative research also allowed the researchers capture language, actions, and behavior of the researched (Maykut & Morehouse, 2005) through different data collection methods (in the case of this study, interviews, documentation, and archival records) and interaction with participants.
Exploratory case study was appropriate for the study because as Yin (2018) noted the design allowed for an indepth understanding of a particular phenomenon or situation. Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted that the case study design was well suited for qualitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) also described three purposes of the case study design; to provide in-depth description of a situation such that would support transferability and make complex context clear, to communicate multiple realities which is difficult to do in quantitative research, and to provide a platform for communicating with the audience as it provides the latter an opportunity to bring their tacit knowledge to bear on an inquiry. In case studies, researchers are expected to spend longer time with the participants in the field while paying attention to the context of the case (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). However, the expected long stay with the participants was limited in the study because of high cost of travels, deadlines, tight work schedule, and frequent strikes in Nigerian universities. The time limitation was made up for by making provision for electronic communications with the participants from offsite which was quite useful for the interviewee transcript review and member checking processes.

Participants
The study was implemented on site in a southwestern university in Nigeria. The population of interest in the study was all the academic and non-academic or administrative staff included in the Committee of Provosts, Deans, and Directors (COPD) of the university. It was assumed that COPD members were better positioned to help address the research question and accomplish the purpose of the study. The total numerical strength of the population of interest, the COPD, was about 35.
In selecting potential participants for the study using purposive sampling, emphasis was on those individuals that would help to maximize learning and understanding of the case. The inclusion criteria for the potential participants were active membership of the COPD, active employment with the university (contract or full-time), and persons in the senior leadership and management cadre of the university. The other inclusion criteria were the involvement with the development and or review and implementation of policies regarding staff and students' conduct and acceptable behavior, and the availability and willingness to participate in the study. The samples in qualitative studies are selected based on their likelihood to provided rich-textured information relevant to the focus of the inquiry (Luborsky & Rubinstein, 1995;Marshall, 1996;Vasileiou et al., 2018).
The sampling frame for the study was 25 because there were not more than this number of potential participants from COPD that were available and eligible to participate in the study, as some were on leave, on sabbatical, or were not otherwise available and willing to participate. A sample of seven COPD participants was used for the study as a consequence of data saturation. The sample comprised of only male participants, not by design, but by availability and willingness to participate. The potential female participants contacted were either unwilling to participate or sick at the time the research was conducted. The researcher was in the field for about 33 days expecting to be invited as promised by some potential female participants who showed interest in the study but that did not happen. Participation was voluntary so the researcher felt no need to pressure any potential participant to avoid a situation of coercion. The sample age ranges were 53-62 years. The sample was made of full professors in their respective fields and the range of years of experience was 21-30. In qualitative research, the use of criteria such as saturation and redundancy in data collection were well justified in data collection instead of the statistical criteria used in quantitative research to determine sample size (Morgan, 2008). Kegler et al. (2019) found that sample size varied widely in their study of 48 articles which were published in Health Education and Behavior between 2000 and 2015. Kegler et al. (2019) used qualitive research methods in their study and also found that for studies using the interview techniques the sample size ranged from five to 525 participants. In qualitative research sampling for case study, access to relevant information that support the appropriateness and purpose of the study was paramount (Kegler et al., 2019). Thus, a small sample of seven participants was appropriate to support the purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study.

Measures and Procedure
The primary source of evidence was obtained from unstructured interviews with the COPD participants. The second source of data was secondary data from documents such as the current regulations and codes of conduct for staff and students, and reports of investigations of bullying (traditional and cyber) cases and online misconduct or unacceptable behavior. The third source of data was secondary data from archival records of older policies on staff and students code of conduct and acceptable behavior, and archived reports of investigations of bullying (traditional and cyber) cases and online-misconduct and publications. The instruments used for the study, other than the researcher, were the interview guide and the document sheet which was used to keep a record of the documents and archival records taken from the university.
The interview guide had open-ended questions for the interviewees excluding any follow-up questions. The interviews with the participants were conducted singly by the researcher in the privacy of each participant's university office. Each interview took an average of about 45 min. The planned interview questions excluding the follow-up questions were as follows: • What are your recommendations for the development of cyberbullying management strategies for the university? • How are cyberbullying incidents documented in the university? • How are the reports of cyberbullying incidents processed in the university? • In your experience, how often are the incidents or cases of cyberbullying reported? • How do you view the significance of cyberbullying management policy in this institution? • How are staff informed about what to do in regard to cyberbullying incidents or cases? • How are students informed about what to do in regard to cyberbullying incidents or cases? • What are the challenges you have when managing incidents of cyberbullying in the university? • How were the conduct and behavior policies for the university developed?
The interview questions were field tested with three individuals, one in the US and two in Nigeria. These three individuals were not eligible to participate in the study but were knowledgeable about the subject. Field testing helped the researcher to reduce ambiguity in interview questions in line with ethical best practices (Stake, 1995).
The purpose of using documents and archival records alongside the interviews in the study was to help corroborate findings by triangulation (Yin, 2018). Additionally, documents and archival records helped to make the findings and conclusions of the study more convincing and accurate as agreed by Yin (2018). Furthermore, the rationale for using documents and archival records in the study was to fulfill the requirement for conducting case study research, that is the use of multiple data sources which helped render the participants' perspective in the study more accurately (Yin, 2018).
The researcher was given full ethical approval and consent by the Nigerian university authorities to conduct the research after required applications were made. The details of the consent included the use of the university premises for the study, the recruitment of participants, the use of the university name, and the use of the university data. No potential participant was coerced, unduly influenced and or unjustifiable pressured to have participated in the study. The potential participants who signed the consent form/documents became participants for the research. That is, all seven participants used in the study provided written informed consent. Every participant was asked the same question during the interviews, except for the follow-up questions, which were dictated by the participants' responses. The interviews were recorded with electronic devices and transcribed by the researcher. Interviewee transcript review and findings verification/member checking were done later with the participants. All the rights and privileges of participants were respected as appropriate by the researcher in accordance with ethical best practices. The officers in-charge of the documents and archival records cooperated with the researcher by allowing access to the documents and archival records in their custody after ensuring that the ethical due process was fulfilled by the researcher.

Data Analysis
The constant comparative analysis method, as modified by Maykut and Morehouse, was used for the analysis of data collected for the study. All the data collected for the study were analyzed by the researcher. The constant comparative analysis method allowed the researcher the flexibility characteristic of the qualitative research approach and the exploratory case study design. The data analysis process involved five steps: the preparation of collected data for analysis, the provisional category development, the refinement of categories, the exploration of relationships and patterns across categories, and the integration of data and report writing.

Preparation of Data for Analysis
The preparation of data for analysis involved gathering and organizing all the evidence from the three different sources, the interviews (primary source) and the documents and archival data (secondary sources). The researcher produced the transcripts of the interview sessions and printed two copies each for every participant's account. Similarly, the relevant sections of the documents and archival records were photographed and two copies each were printed. These copy sets of transcripts, documents, and archival records were coded and paged numbered to reflect the original sources. One copy set of the interview transcripts, documents, and archival records was kept safe for future reference and the second copy set was used for the analysis. Every copy of the collected evidence was read severally and studied. Then, the chunks/units of meaning in each copy of evidence were identified, marked, and coded to the sources of all the evidence collected for the study. The marking was done by drawing a vertical line to the extent of the identified chunk/unit of meaning on the left margin of each page and labeling each chunk/unit of meaning with the underlying idea and a notation of its source code on top of the label (unitizing of data).
There were about 122 chunks/units of meaning identified during the preparation of data for analysis stage and many of these chunks albeit from different sources were similar in title and content. These chunks/units of meaning were then cut out and taped on index cards and read many times again and compared with key themes, concepts, phrases, and ideas found in the data for the purpose of generating the initial categories. In this study, every chunk/unit of meaning identified was linked to the focus of the study to help the researcher accomplish the purpose of the research. Also, during the data preparation stage, the researcher created a discovery board where all recurring ideas, themes, patterns, issues, topics, and phrases from the interviews, documents, and archival records for the research were written and posted. On the discovery board were phrases, words, and themes such as emerging phenomena, review of conduct and discipline policies, review of current regulations, cyberbullying awareness, cyberbullying awareness raising, documentation and processing of cyberbullying incidents and cases, information mechanism, lack of awareness, significance of cyberbullying awareness raising, challenges to the management of cyberbullying, and depth of investigation of cyberbullying cases. There were also phrases like strategies for raising cyberbullying awareness, managing cyberbullying, cyberbullying management policy, cyberbullying policy content, survey of cyberbullying situation, cyberbullying prevalence reporting rates, significance of cyberbullying survey, forms of cyberbullying manifestations, why incidents and cases of cyberbullying are not reported, university disciplinary committees' shortcomings, lack of cyberbullying management policy, and significance of cyberbullying management 1 3 policy, etc. The purpose of the discovery board was to help the researcher develop the initial categories of the data for further analysis.

Provisional Category Development
The initial ideas, concepts, and themes posted on the discovery board were reviewed and the ideas with similar and overlapping contents were merged and streamlined. Some other ideas on the discovery board were re-worded for clarity. The provisional categories of chunks/units of meaning were then developed on a new or fresh board using the reviewed recurring ideas, concepts, and themes from the discovery board as prominent ideas for labelling the provisional categories and the related chunks/units of meaning from the initial unitized data sheet as content of the provisional categories. For example, the first prominent idea that was selected from the discovery board and taped to the top left corner of the new board was cyberbullying awareness raising. Then, from the unitized data sheet, all chunks/units of meaning that were related to the cyberbullying awareness raising theme were selected and taped under the prominent idea to form the first provisional category. This process was reiterated for all other provisional categories and posted to the right of the first provisional category. In all, 13 provisional categories developed. The provisional categories developed were cyberbullying awareness raising, survey of the cyberbullying situation in the university, university cyberbullying management policy, cyberbullying prevalence reporting rates, and emerging phenomena. Other provisional categories were review of the university conduct and discipline policies, documentation and processing of cyberbullying incidents and cases, information mechanism, depth of investigation of cyberbullying cases, managing cyberbullying, forms of cyberbullying manifestations, why incidents and cases of cyberbullying are not reported, and university disciplinary committees' shortcomings. No miscellaneous category was created. Thus, some chunks/units of meaning had to be dropped because these were outside the significant content and focus of the study. For example, the discussions about transparency in the implementation of university contracts and the cloning of ATM cards by cybercriminals were not within the scope of the study.

Refinement of Categories
The refinement of the provisional categories step involved the review and reorganization of each category and its content to align with the focus of the study within the rules of inclusion guided by the research problem and the purpose of the study. The 13 provisional categories were reorganized and refined into three final categories/themes and coded. The first category/theme was cyberbullying awareness (CA) and the rule of inclusion was, the staff and students of the university needed cyberbullying awareness raising. The second category/theme was the cyberbullying situation in the university (CS) and the rule of inclusion was, the requirement to survey the cyberbullying situation in the university. The third category/theme was the university cyberbullying management policy (CP) and the rule of inclusion was, the university staff and students needed a cyberbullying management policy.

Exploration of Relationships and Patterns Across Categories
The exploration of relationships and patterns across the categories/themes step was needed to bring out the connections between the final categories/themes. The three categories/themes (cyberbullying awareness, the cyberbullying situation in the university, and the university cyberbullying management policy) had a common connection. All three themes represented the recommendations of the COPD members for the development of cyberbullying management strategies/policy for the staff and students of the university that was studied. The three themes aligned with the focus of the study which helped the researcher address the research question and accomplish the purpose of the study.

Integration of Data and Report Writing
The final step of the data analysis process was to document in writing the findings from the synthesis of all that was heard from the participants and read from the documents and archival records retrieved from officers in-charge of these resources at the research site. This last step also involved the documentation in writing of what was understood from aggregating all the evidences collected to make sense of the purpose of the study and address the research question. During data analysis, the researcher was able to triangulate the data retrieved from the multiple sources (interviews, the documents, and the archival records) to corroborate findings across data sets to enhance trustworthiness and reduce researcher and single source biases.

Results and Discussion
After refining, synthesizing, and triangulating the data sets collected from the interviews, documents, and archival records at the research site, three major themes emerged to help address the research question. The themes were cyberbullying awareness, cyberbullying situation in the university, and the university cyberbullying management policy.
The different forms of cyberbullying used in the study to categorize the incidents and cases described by the participants were derived from existing literature by the researcher and not from the participants. The same was done for the cases discussed in the university documents and archival records. The essence of including the cyberbullying terminologies was to aid the comprehension of the different forms of cyberbullying manifestations in the university as described in the documents and archival records and by the participants, many of whom did not know they were dealing with cyberbullying incidents and cases at the time. The discussion of the study results will be captured under the respective themes.

Theme 1-Cyberbullying Awareness
The accounts of the participants revealed that many staff and students of the university did not know or understand much about cyberbullying. The participants, in their responses, recognized the importance of raising cyberbullying awareness for the staff and students. The participants also suggested some ways the university authorities could improve cyberbullying awareness for the staff and students.
Low Level of Cyberbullying Awareness The researcher found that the level of cyberbullying awareness was relatively low among the staff and students judging from the responses of 57% of the participants. A participant said, "I do not know about cyberbullying, … it is you now, that is explaining what cyberbullying is." Another participant noted that, "some of them [staff and students] do not even know what we mean by cyberbullying … unless there is a form of awareness, like you coming into the fore now, you know you are opening the eyes of people." One other participant said that the staff and students had "inadequate information about it [cyberbullying], what it is, what to do, sometimes some people share news without even knowing the implication." The finding that there was a low level of cyberbullying awareness among the staff and students of the university corroborates Oyewusi and Orolade's (2014) conclusion that, the level of awareness of the cyberbullying phenomenon and its adverse consequences is still low in Nigerian institutions of learning.

Strategies for Raising Cyberbullying Awareness
About 86% of the participants recognized the importance of raising cyberbullying awareness for the staff and the students. These participants also suggested some ways the university authorities could raise the cyberbullying awareness levels for the staff and the students. A participant stated inter alia that, "the university needs to, first of all, understand what the whole idea, the whole concept of cyberbullying is …." Another participant suggested the inclusion of cyberbullying awareness literature in "the orientation program for new intakes or students when they resume for the session" and that a "symposium on the negative effects of cyberbullying" should be organized by a committee so tasked to help improve the awareness of the phenomenon in the university. A third participant stated, "it is important for us to build capacity for us to understand, have information of what we mean by cyberbullying." There was the suggestion by a participant that cyberbullying awareness information should be "incorporated as part of the general studies program" for the students and that the members of staff should be "taken through specialized programs, which should be done maybe through, … human resource development center" or "the center for excellence in teaching … where capacities of the members of staff are built on how to deliver programs to the students." The finding of the need for raising cyberbullying awareness for the staff and students corroborated the findings of some previous studies. For example, Jang et al. (2014) noted that, increasing awareness by providing necessary information to the students, lecturers, and even parents can help in the control of cyberbullying in the universities. Also, Ata and Adnan (2016) argued that cyberbullying awareness raising strategy is significant for precautionary measures against the threats of the phenomenon and for encouraging behavioral changes that could help reduce the exposure to cyberbullying. Similarly, Schenk and Fremouw (2012) recommended cyberbullying awareness raising as one of the strategies for combatting cyberbullying and coping with the consequences of the phenomenon in the universities. However, Myers and Cowie (2017) noted that the impact of raising cyberbullying awareness is largely unknown in the university environment even though such strategies have been potentially useful for reducing incidents of the phenomenon in primary and secondary schools.
The recommendation by some participants about where and when to introduce cyberbullying awareness raising programs for students aligns with Zalaquett and Chatters (2014) finding that cyberbullying education in the university could be incorporated in introductory programs such as new intake seminars, human relations programs, and university experience courses. The participants' recommendation also corroborates Faucher et al. (2015) contention that cyberbullying awareness raising is one of the strategies for preventing cyberbullying in the university environment even though it works best when done "early in a student's life at the university, such as during the initial orientation sessions and on the first day of a course" (p.115). Also, the recommendation could be supported with Minor et al. (2013) suggestion that cyberbullying awareness raising could be integrated in new students' orientation programs because many students may not be aware of the phenomenon (and its negative consequences) and could commit cyberbullying in ignorance.
The finding that the university members of staff could be taken through specialized programs to improve their cyberbullying awareness is comparable with Myers and Cowie (2017) suggestion that the "staff need training on the dynamics of this problem and potential strategies for managing incidents" (p.1178). The finding also aligns with a previous study by Minor et al. (2013) who recommended cyberbullying awareness training for university leaders and supervisors to enable them give appropriate support to the members of faculties who fall victim to cyberbullying. The finding could also be supported with Kraft and Wang (2010) position that training faculty in cyberbullying awareness is a necessity to support their understanding and management of the phenomenon on campus.

Theme 2-Cyberbullying Situation in the University
Some of the participants were concerned about cyberbullying prevalence among the staff and students and noted that many of the incidents were not documented with the university authorities. Some participants suggested that an investigation of the cyberbullying situation was necessary to help guide the actions of the university authorities.

Undocumented and Documented Cases of Cyberbullying
The concern of some participants about the prevalence of cyberbullying in the university could not be supported with data, so it was not clear if the prevalence rate was high or low. What was clear from the account of the participants was that cyberbullying was very much prevalent in the university. About 86% of the participants acknowledged that there were far less documented incidents and cases of the phenomenon in the university compared with the undocumented incidents and cases. A participant stated that the cases of cyberbullying "are not reported officially. It is an unofficial thing, like two, three people discussing and making reference or references to their experiences but never documented. So, this has happened, this has happened. So, I would say like off record, unofficially, people discuss it, but never documented or reported officially." Some of the participants tied the prevalence of cyberbullying in the university to lack of courage by the staff and students to report their unpleasant experiences to the university authorities. One participant stated, "a lot of people die in silence, that is the truth. They don't tell it out there." According to this participant, the students will not document cyberbullying incidents with the university authorities for many reasons such as the fear that "they may experience further bullying," and the feeling of being responsible for the expulsion of their colleagues. Another participant noted that "most of the time people [staff and students] are not aware of their rights and they don't even know whether it's what we call [cyberbullying]." Still on the issue of the reluctance to report, a participant stated, cyberbullying "is eating deep into the system and … we just gloss over" it is because people do not know where and who to report to and even if it is finally reported, "will there be any further action on it?".
The finding regarding the reluctance by the staff and students to document cyberbullying incidents with the university authorities corroborates Myers and Cowie (2013) finding that cyberbullying victims would rather not report their experiences because they fear retaliation, they live in perpetual fear and shame, and feel powerless and embarrassed about the situation they find themselves. The finding that relates to people not knowing where and whom to report cyberbullying cases resonates with Wozencroft et al. (2015) finding that, the university authority structure is complex and the reporting protocol is shrouded with uncertainty, which made it difficult for students to figure out where to report incidents or cases of cyberbullying. This is also similar with Giovazolias and Malikiosi-Loizos' (2016) contention that cyberbullying incidents and cases are not reported because both victims and cyberbullies do not know where to go to for help.
Two participants gave account of four undocumented (not reported officially to the university authorities) cyberbullying cases that were resolved off the record. These were two cases of flaming, one case of denigration, and one case of indirect threat. The flaming involved aggravated heated online exchanges between cyberbullies and their victims as described by Menesini et al. (2013) and Smith (2015). The denigration referred to the use of cyber media (web pages, slam books, emails, text messages or via instant messaging) by a perpetrator to spread false and damaging communication aimed at soiling the reputation of a target as explained in Staude-Muller et al. (2012). The indirect threat involved an online communication relaying an imminent physical harm to the target but made indirectly in the public online domain as stated in Langos (2015).
The researcher found only two cyberbullying cases documented in the university documents and archival records released for the study, one in 2009 and the other in 2016. These two cases were processed by the university authorities under the offence of gross misconduct. The 2009 case was a complex cyberbullying case involving revenge porn or non-consensual pornography (Branch et al., 2017;Pollack, 2016;Citron & Frank, 2014), harassment (Branch et al., 2017), cyberstalking (Li, 2007;Smith, 2015), and indirect threat (Langos, 2015) perpetuated by four students who acted in collaboration with an outside sponsor to target a female student of the university for at least two years before it was reported. About 15% of the participants corroborated the case during the interview sessions. The revenge porn involved the electronic release of a hitherto private and sexually explicit video without the consent of the victim by the outside sponsor (victim's boyfriend) and the four students involved. The harassment involved disturbing the victim with unsolicited electronic messages of a painful nature. The cyberstalking involved the unceasing and unpleasant monitoring, and threatening of the victim for years on campus. The indirect threat involved the initial electronic threat of harm to the victim (distribution of the sexually explicit video involving the victim) if a ransom was not paid to the four students involved in the cyberbullying activity. The 2016 case was a cyberbullying case of denigration (Staude-Muller et al., 2012) by a student (cyberbully) who used a social media network channel (Facebook) to soil the image of a top principal staff of the university. The case was corroborated by 57% of the participants during their respective interviews. The cyberbully had described his target on Facebook as "a disgrace to our noble discipline, a disgrace to fatherhood, a disgrace to every other intellectual and a disgrace to himself." The students involved in the 2009 and 2016 cases were found guilty of gross misconduct by the Central Student Disciplinary Committee (CSDC) and expelled from the university as documented in the Student Affairs Division-Student Disciplinary Committee minute book. It was found that in the two cyberbullying cases, the CSDC investigation appeared to have focused more on the punitive measures for the identified cyberbullies. There were no recommendations for the management of the cyberbullies to forestall future repetition of their untoward behavior. Also, in the decision of the disciplinary committee, nothing was said about how the victims (especially the students) were to be managed to help their mental and psychological stability and reintegration into the university system without issues like fear and distrust. These findings were unlike Willard's (2003) suggestion that educational authorities ought to carry out thorough investigation of cyberbullying cases to know the root causes (the perspective and the rationale) and address these as appropriate, rather than to focus on knowing the culprits or perpetrators. The findings did not also align with Smith et al. (2016) conclusion that disciplinary methods ought to be healing, non-punitive, emphasizing safety, and promoting harmonious relationships in the learning environment. The findings were dissimilar to Jones and Scott's (2012) recommendation that disciplinary methods ought to be educative and encourage accountability among students, and punitive measures ought to be used as a last resort when parties involved in cyberbullying do not respond positively to counselling and intervention strategies provided by the university authorities. Also dissimilar to these findings was Myers and Cowie's (2013) conclusion that on the aggregate, punitive disciplinary strategies are not usually effective in combatting cyberbullying but that the strategies that support peer group relationships and youth value systems have more likelihood of success.
It was also found that the existing disciplinary committees in the university had no psychologists (counselling or clinical) as members to advise the respective committees on the psychological wellbeing and disposition of cyberbullies, victims, and bystanders during hearings. In line with this finding, Cook et al. (2007) observed that the role of the psychologist in the management of cyberbullying incidents and cases in educational institutions have not been given priority it deserved. Diamanduros et al. (2008) argued that the psychologists are pivotal to the tackling of cyberbullying in educational institutions, from awareness raising to intervention strategies. Cyberbullying intervention teams of educational institutions can benefit from the guidance of psychologists when reviewing reports of cyberbullying cases and psychologists can assess reported cases, and also advise the intervention team on the emotional state of cyberbullying victims and make recommendations for counselling as appropriate (Diamanduros et al., 2008). Furthermore, Larson and Mark (2014) noted that psychologists can organize the cyberbullying prevention team, help to do the needs assessment of the situation, analyze results of the incidents under investigation, and also advice on the best cause of management option.
Importance of Investigating Cyberbullying Situation in the University About 29% of the participants suggested that an investigation of the cyberbullying situation was necessary to help guide the actions of the university authorities. A participant argued that, "there must be a survey. We have to find out what is on ground. … So, there must be a kind of a survey and arising from the survey, then recommendations can be made." Another participant stated that, "lack of data presupposes absence of data. And to say there is absence of data is also to hint at another problem which is infrastructural deficit with which such data could be administered. You can't say people are not stealing, just because you have not caught thieves." The study result that there was the need to investigate the cyberbullying situation in the university aligns with O'Connor et al. (2018) recommendation that universities need to investigate to full understanding the cyberbullying issues specific to their campuses so that any policies derived therefrom will address these issues and be grounded in law. Sullivan (2016) also recognized the significance of a survey as one of the key elements of planning the development of cyberbullying management strategies for a university. The finding that there was lack of data on the cyberbullying prevalence rate in the university, which created a challenge for the university authorities in managing the phenomenon on campus, was similar to Minor et al. (2013) observation that there was not enough study of cyberbullying in higher educational institutions from which adequate data could be generated to develop preventive strategies. However, there have been previous studies that indicated different prevalence rates of cyberbullying in different universities globally which can be corroborated by the works of Adomi et al. (2016), Nwosu et al. (2018, Dredge et al. (2014), Bevilacqua et al. (2017), Lee (2017), Khine et al. (2020), andNdiege et al. (2020).
In this study, Glasser's (1998) choice theory helped to guide the understanding of the significance of investigating the cyberbullying situation in the university. The cyberbullying situation investigation outcomes could help to expose the choices the staff and students may make with regard 1 3 to the cyberbullying behaviors in the university. The study of these behaviors may guide the university management leadership in the design and development of research-based cyberbullying management strategies for the staff and students. The application of these strategies may help to redirect the university staff and students' behaviors away from of the perpetration of cyberbullying. The strategies could also help staff and students to embrace peaceful co-existence and harmonious interrelationships. Also, the investigation of the cyberbullying situation in the university could help the university leadership management understand the environmental elements that influence the behaviors that encourage or discourage the perpetration of cyberbullying by the staff and students within the university. This would align with Bronfenbrenner's (1977) social ecological theory reasoning that reducing and managing cyberbullying would involve the consideration of all the environmental elements that could influence the behaviors people in a setting.

Theme 3-University Cyberbullying Management Policy
All the participants (100%) acknowledged in their responses that the university had no dedicated cyberbullying policy. A study of the university documents and archival records also showed that the university had no cyberbullying management policy. Thus, the university authorities had managed cyberbullying cases with the extant conduct and discipline policies documented in the Staff and Student Handbooks at the time this study was done. Only 29% of the participants shared their thoughts on the recommended content of the university cyberbullying management policy and the composition of the policy drafting team.

Lack of Cyberbullying Management Policy
At the time this research was conducted, cyberbullying was not mentioned anywhere in the university policy documents (current and archival). On the issue of the lack of cyberbullying management policy in the university, a participant stated that, "there is no structure, legal framework, so you just handle it [cyberbullying] the way you feel like. Or, sometimes [even] if the legal unit advice you, … you may be doing the wrong thing while you are trying in your passion to get things properly correct." The same participant added that, "there is the need to put a policy in place, … that one will be a means through which we anchor the activities as related to cyberbullying and it will be template through which the issues of cyberbullying will be adequately tackled in the university." Another participant echoed that, "the university needs to come up with a policy that would drive its handling of this crime… and has to be done expeditiously too." The finding that cyberbullying was not mentioned anywhere in the university policy documents used for the management of the phenomenon on campus, inclusive of the conduct and discipline polices aligns with Jones and Scott (2012) conclusion that there was no direct mention of cyberbullying in most of the student conduct policies of a Canadian university they studied. The finding that the researched university had no cyberbullying management policy aligns with Myers and Cowie's (2017) conclusion that most universities do not have policies dedicated to the management of cyberbullying and that "some institutions do not even have advice on how to tackle cyberbullying" (p1179). The finding also corroborated Campbell (2016) conclusion that it was difficult to find cyberbullying policies in many universities, workplaces, and schools which tend to indicate the level of commitment these institutions have to the prevention of the phenomenon.
The need for the university cyberbullying management policy noted in the study results aligns with Hinduja and Patchin's (2009) summation that an important way of protecting the staff and students from the consequences of cyberbullying was to have an unambiguous and comprehensive policy for preventing and managing the phenomenon. The finding also aligns with Faucher et al. (2015) and Slovak et al. (2015) finding that in the university, the development of a comprehensive anti-cyberbullying policy was one of the most favored solutions to the problem of the phenomenon. Also in agreement with this position was Campbell's (2016) argument that the provision of cyberbullying management policies and procedures was one of the effective strategies for prevention and intervention against cyberbullying in schools.
The significance of cyberbullying management policy could also be compared to McAlister's (2001) argument that an understanding of Bandura's (1986) moral disengagement theory can be used to manage cyberbullying. According to McAlister (2001), if the moral disengagement mechanisms responsible for self-sanctioning are explained to a target audience (staff and students in this case) understanding, the urge or drive to engage in cyberbullying will be reduced. In this study, Bandura's (1986) moral disengagement theory was used to guide how the understanding of the contents of a cyberbullying management policy by the staff and students of the university could help them refrain from the untoward practice.
Cyberbullying Policy Content A participant suggested that the cyberbullying management policy should include "a clear definition of what cyberbullying is, … the party[ies] involved in it, … [how] people can seek a legal redress" of the cyberbullying among staff and students. The same participant also recommended that, in the policy, there should be emphasis on the importance of thorough investigation of the incidents and cases to establish the actual causes of cyberbullying beyond the hitherto objective of finding the guilty party(ies) and meting out punishment or sanctions. The participant further stated that, "some people doing cyberbullying may not be mentally stable," so the policy should also include management strategies for the cyberbullies not only the victims. Another participant suggested, with regard to the fair use of the Internet and social media, that the cyberbullying management policy should include among other things, "how to use, who to use, where to use, when to use, and then where to report to in terms of when you need assistance or help when you do not know." The suggestions made by participants regarding the content of the university cyberbullying management policy aligns with some of the criteria that Faucher et al. (2015) used to evaluate cyberbullying policies of some universities. These criteria included conceptualization of cyberbullying and its different forms of manifestation, behaviors that constitute cyberbullying, situating the cyberbullying behaviors in the context of hurtful outcomes, details of penalties or sanctions including any distinction between formal and informal complaints resolution, details of complaint procedure and processes and point of contact for cyberbullying issues, details of prevention strategies for cyberbullying, and university awareness raising guidelines (Faucher et al., 2015). The finding also corroborated Smith et al. (2008) criteria for evaluating bullying policies; clear definition of bullying behaviors, procedures for reporting and responding to bullying incidents, documentation of bullying incidents, policy communication and periodic evaluation of policy, and strategies for the prevention of bullying. The finding echoed Bauman and Baldasare's (2015) recommendation that all universities could have a clear cyberbullying policy statement defining what the phenomenon is, who to contact or report if there is a cyberbullying incident, the consequences perpetrators of cyberbullying will face when they are discovered, and that cyberbullying awareness raising ought to be incorporated in the university programs.
A participant suggested that the university should include students in the team that would be tasked to draft cyberbullying management policy because students constitute a key stakeholder group in the community. Another participant noted that the university operates a committee system and that "it is based on committee system that we develop most of the policies." One other participant recommended that the university authorities should put together a "multidisciplinary team" to study the cyberbullying situation in the university and come up with a cyberbullying management policy draft that will be processed through the scrutiny of the leadership and the decision makers of the university before ratification. The same participant noted that the policy drafting team must have a good understanding of the "whole concept of cyberbullying, …causes of cyberbullying, …its effects on the victims…and the institution, …and …the implication of cyberbullying on the society at large." The participants' recommendations for the make-up of the university cyberbullying management policy drafting team could be supported with Faucher et al. (2015) statement that in an ideal situation, a university anti-cyberbullying policy ought to be developed with contributions from staff and students because they understand how the system works. The recommendation also corroborated Sullivan's (2016) position that the staff and the students could participate in discussions and decisionmaking processes building up to the development of university anti-cyberbullying initiatives so as to have the same knowledge with regards to how cyberbullying will be combatted. This finding also resonated with Smith et al. (2016) identification of the effectiveness of restorative cyberbullying management methods which are co-created by staff and students of the university.

Limitations
A limitation of the study was the fact that the participants were all male. Perhaps having female participants in the study could have highlighted the female perspectives of the issues considered and possibly influence the outcomes of the study. Another limitation of the study was the relatively low level of participants' awareness of the complexities of the cyberbullying phenomenon and its management. This situation could have influenced the participants' contribution to the study with regard to their understanding of the seriousness of the phenomenon, the behaviors that constituted cyberbullying, the reasons for the low reporting rate of cyberbullying incidents and cases in the university, their responses to cyberbullying incidents reported, and most importantly their recommendations for the cyberbullying management policy. The nonexistence of a cyberbullying policy in the university was also seen as a limitation to the study because of the effects it had on the perspectives from which the participants viewed and addressed cyberbullying incidents and cases, and by extension their responses to the interview questions.

Recommendations to Leaders and Practitioners (Implications)
The recommendations made in the study revolved around efforts made to address the research problem, the research question, and the accomplishment of the purpose of the study. The university management leadership could set-up a multidisciplinary committee to carry out an investigation of the cyberbullying situation on its campuses as a requirement for the development of research-based cyberbullying awareness raising programs and management policy for its staff and students. It would be advisable for the university authorities to include a psychologist and a student representative among other members of the multidisciplinary committee charged with this responsibility. The design of the investigation instrument would need to be simple, comprehensive, and easy to understand. The cyberbullying research instruments used by Molluzzo et al. (2013), andHerrera-Lopez et al. (2017) could be modified to suit the needs of the university for the purpose of accomplishing this task.
The university management leadership could also setup a multidisciplinary committee to develop the education and training programs for cyberbullying awareness raising strategies for the staff and students of the university. It would be advisable for the university authorities to include a psychologist and a student representative among the members of the multidisciplinary committee. The committee would need to consult widely on the subject of cyberbullying and possibly procure the services of cyberbullying professionals. The committee would also need the results of the university cyberbullying situation investigation as one of its resources for the implementation of the task of developing the education and training programs for raising cyberbullying awareness.
The university management leadership could meet the need for the development of cyberbullying management policy for the university staff and students by tasking a multidisciplinary committee with this responsibility. It would be advisable that the composition of the committee included a psychologist and a student representative among its other members. The committee would need to review the cyberbullying situation investigation outcomes and the cyberbullying education and training programs that would be developed for the university along with other resources to help their task.
The university management leadership would need to ensure that the different disciplinary committees (senior staff, junior staff, and students) are designed in composition and function to handle cyberbullying cases. The composition and functions of the different disciplinary committees ought to be very clear and the responsibilities of each member of the committees ought to be explained in detail without ambiguities to ensure the focus of addressing the cyberbullying challenges. A psychologist may need to be included as a core member in every disciplinary committee in the university. The university leadership could also ensure that the disciplinary methods adopted for the management of cyberbullying cases are restorative in nature and thus encourage policy compliance.

Recommendations for Future Research
Some of the participants in the study were convinced that cyberbullying prevalence in the university was due to the lack of awareness of the phenomenon by some of the staff and students, which in turn contributed to the reluctance to document incidents and cases with the university authorities. This research could not support that conclusion. It was therefore recommended that a quantitative survey be carried out to examine the relationship between the reporting rate of incidents and cases of cyberbullying and the prevalence rate of the phenomenon in the university. This study could not show if the prevalence rate of cyberbullying was high or low in the university that was studied as there was no previous research to ascertain the cyberbullying prevalence rate. It was also recommended that a quantitative survey study be done to ascertain the cyberbullying prevalence rate and its impact on the staff and students in the university. Other studies could use qualitative case study to investigate the implications of the geographic boundary of cyberbullying for the university's leadership jurisdiction and its legal structure when resolving complicated cases of cyberbullying. Also, a quantitative/qualitative comparative study of the efficacy of the cyberbullying management policies of different institutions (local and foreign) could be done in the future to help highlight the best practices in cyberbullying management.

Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.