 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me today. My name is Chandel. And I want to speak to you a little bit today about a project that looks at the problem of online abuse. Specifically, I want to discuss how the integration and use of online spaces and digital tools over the last decade has heightened scholars visibility online, opening them up to new experiences of online abuse. Online spaces and tools have become increasingly important in scholars lives for things like research collaboration and knowledge mobilization. At the same time, the online abuse that emerges from online spaces is known to have negative and often severe impacts. For these reasons, colleges and universities must recognize the risks associated with online visibility and have policies in place that address them. We analyze 41 workplace policies that deal with harassment and discrimination from Canadian universities and colleges to understand what these institutions proposed to do about online abuse. To do this work we searched the public websites of 232 universities and colleges across Canada for their harassment policies. We were able to identify 129 policies, and of those 129 we found that only 41 of the policies addressed online abuse. In the beginning in Vivo 12 we coded the 41 policies to identify how exactly university and college community members might be protected from online abuse within the context of their institutions policies. Two of the most salient problems we found across the 41 policies focus on the scope of the policy, specifically who the policies apply to and where the policies apply. The institution emerges from the policies main objective to protect members of the university community from other members of the same institution. While this stipulation is reasonable in the context of a college or community, it precludes perpetrators of online abuse and harassment that are unknown anonymous or unrelated to the institutional community. This focus poses serious problems because the online abuse that academics receive often involves people outside of or unknown to the university community. The second limitation comes from where policies apply. In the policies we examined the ones that define their scope in relation to place typically limit covered instances of abuse to places such as sanctioned university events and events directly related to work and study. This provision ignores the fact that the abuse scholars receive online is not always formally tied to institutional places and formal academic duties. So defining harassment policies in terms of university personnel or spaces excludes acts of online abuse that occur outside of institutionally sanctioned platforms such as social media, and outside formally recognized academic labor, like appearing on podcasts on TV or radio, and by individuals who are not members of the institutions community, which are most of the people we interact with in online spaces. These limitations demonstrate that the structure of institutional harassment policies leave scholars unprotected by institutions when they experience online abuse. This begs the question, where do we turn when as academics we experience online abuse. Thank you so much for tuning in today and watching, please reach out to us or leave any questions or comments you have in the comment section below. Thank you and cheers.