Policy, practice and new social media tweetchat - transcript

We ran our second tweetchat yesterday on whether new social media can make an impact on policy and practice. We had a good discussion with some great points and resources being shared. You can see the entire transcript from the tweetchat after the jump.

Making an impact on policy and practice with social media research – exciting news about our next tweet chat

We have decided to run a monthly tweet chat following the success of our first chat at the end of July.

Our next chat will be held on Wednesday 29th August 5-6pm BST and the topic will be how we can ensure that the research we conduct using social media is being understood, appreciated and used by stakeholders and decision makers in policy and practice.

We hope you can join us on Twitter, just follow the #NSMNSS to join in. Read our earlier blog for more detailed guidance on taking part in a tweet chat.

Gareth Morrell, Senior Research Director at NatCen Social Research, has posed a set of interesting questions for us to address during the chat so please get your thinking hats on and spread the word!

The questions:

Q1. How can social media data help to inform policy and practice?

Q2. How can researchers engage better with policy and practice on this issue and vice versa?

Q3. Is there an appetite for using this data among policy-makers and practitioners?

Q4. What concerns do stakeholders in policy and practice have about these new methods?

We will continue the discussion after the chat on our Methodspace pages and are looking to compile a series of case studies and lessons learnt by network members from their experiences of making use of social media platforms and methods for applied policy research.

The tweet chat, and the examples we gather, will help us in building a picture of how new social media research is being adopted or used in policy and practice and will contribute to an additional event that the NSMNSS team are planning with NESTA around how useful new social media methods might be to applied policy research in the future. This will be a great opportunity to demonstrate the value of these new approaches and methods to research commissioners from a broad range of organisations so we will really value your input.

You can read the transcript from our first tweet chat here.

Kandy Woodfield

Walled gardens or gushing brooks? Public and private data online

“For me there are no answers, only questions” wrote P. L. Travers, “and I am grateful that the questions go on and on”. For each of the ethical pressure points of social media research - harm, copyright, data protection – we are uncomfortably close to Pamela Travers’ fantasy. 

One of the sorest pressure points of all is deciding what is private and what is public online. What data is sacrosanct and what is, as they say, ‘fair game’? A lot pivots on this question: when and how privacy is invaded, the importance and role of informed consent, the protection of identities and persona. In sum, the art of identifying and mitigating the harms inflicted by researchers tapping into vast corpora of social-digital data.

I can’t – and won’t – offer a clear-cut answer. But I can point to one of the reasons that the move towards answers has been so difficult, and that is the role of metaphor. Social media is a new social technology and new common habit. As so often happens when grappling with something new, we resort to a series of metaphors to relate social media to something older and more understood. Three powerful metaphors play a decisive role in conceptualising the private/public problem. 

Space – The Internet is a network of public thoroughfares, semi-public alleyways and cloistered ‘walled gardens’. Understanding privacy spatially in this way nudges certain factors into prominence, especially the local laws – or privacy settings - that govern a particular territory. 

Flow – The Internet is also understood as a network of rivers of information – with gushing rivers, smaller tributaries, brooks and lake. More prominent here are questions about expectations about where the information is going – how it is used, shared and disseminated.

Text – Finally, there is the idea of the Internet as a series of interconnecting texts, a library of libraries. Privacy in this sense implies the relationship between author and text, and especially the terms under which each text was published.

None of these metaphors are altogether wrong, but none are right. When you over-extend metaphors, you also inherit a great deal of unwanted baggage: false dichotomies, half-apt analogies, and blocked off possible solutions. These metaphors have framed our approach to social media research ethics and restricted our responses to them, in powerful, if often unseen, ways.

So a suggestion: the work that must now be done in social media ethics must recognise that the social media is a new thing, Joining a group on social media is not necessarily like joining an offline group. Publishing a tweet is not necessarily like publishing a book. And a discussion on a forum is not necessarily like a discussion down the pub. New concepts, new vocabulary and new approaches to research ethics – not metaphors – are needed now. Perhaps then, pace Travers, we’ll get some more answers.

Carl Miller is an Associate at Demos. 

Ethical Guidelines for Researchers

Before our first knowledge exchange event we gathered some ethical guidelines for social researchers using social media. We found three guidelines which you can access below:

• Casro Social Media Research Guidelines (direct link to pdf)

• ESOMAR Guidelines on Social Media Research

• MRS Guidelines for Online Research

What do you think of these guidelines? Do you think they cover everything you’d need to consider as a researcher? Are there key gaps that you feel they’re missing? Are there any other guidelines that you’ve found that you’d like to share with the network? Come and discuss and share them over on our forum on Methodspace.

Different platforms? Different ethics?

We held our first knowledge exchange seminar at the Oxford Internet Institute on the 24th of July. Focusing on the ethical issues that arise in social media research, we looked at issues around understanding digital identities, the ethics of platforms and public and private data. This is the first in a series of posts detailing the discussions we held as part of the breakout session.   

Within social media user-generated content has become ubiquitous, given this it is not surprising that marketers and social researchers began to focus more attention on social media as a channel to communicate with consumers and to commission social or market research to gain insight into the opinions, attitudes and/or behaviour of social media users.  This has created new opportunities for researchers to observe, interact and gather information. It has also led to new techniques including the use of community panels, co-creation, netnography, blog-mining and web scraping.

The second discussion of our ethics knowledge exchange event explored the concept that the boundaries are now blurred between on and offline but that the nature of research in, and using,  social media may well require researchers to develop new ethical frameworks and concepts in response. In particular do the different platforms require researchers to adopt different ethical standards and a take a position on the ethics of different social media providers?

We began the discussion by airing a few key issues around the topic.

1. Building on a theme from the tweet chat, which is touched on in more detail in the third session, is the definition of what is public space and what is private, do researchers have different ethical responsibilities in public spaces as opposed to private spaces. In essence are ethics mutable?
2. As a key part of this is the consideration that should researchers be concerned with the ethical standards or lack thereof of the platform providers or of the communities on platforms? Should researchers have a role in exposing questionable ethical practices of platform providers or the communities that they are hosting?
3. Further do we as researchers also need to consider the role of those within communities in terms of our research? Are community members co-creators; are they participants or are they authors? Does this change with the methodology adopted for the research?

The general consensus on the first point was that ethics might be a confusing term, and that it was more about a set of values and principles. In this regard it was felt that it was more likely to be about what those active within a social space actually expected in terms of values and principles, chiefly revolving around privacy and security and their protection in these regards both from within and without the social media space. It was felt that researchers have a role in challenging platform providers to develop practice that matches expectations and to highlight to all when this is not the case, transparency about what providers do with users’ data and how data might be shared or used was seen as important in this respect. The point was made that as platforms are in the main commercial ventures they adopt a caveat emptor approach in that all are expected to read and understand the terms of service they operate under. However given the importance of reputation and brand and the consideration that contributors to a social space can be viewed as co-creators of the brands of the platforms it might be best for researchers to take this ‘commercial’ rationale as a way of persuading platforms to adhere to expectations as opposed to making a purely ethical appeal. It could be naive to assume that platforms will respond to a call for more transparency and visibility of data usage policies based on purely ethical grounds and researcher concerns.

On the second and third point the discussion reached a consensus that it is about the expectations of those within a space and as such the ethical standards adopted by researchers should reflect the space itself. Context is critically important, the expectations of users of private ‘walled’ platforms may be very different to those of open social spaces; we also recognised that we know very little empirically about what user expectations are in relation to privacy or data use. The discussion considered space in a number of ways, a discussion which continued in session 4:

• Public space – traditionally content is contributed with the expectation that it will be read by anyone in the public. Our discussion commented that it might be naïve for researchers to assume this though as even within the group very few had actually read the terms of service of platforms on which they themselves are active.  Despite this most thought that research can be carried out subject to the site’s terms of use; users can be identified and quoted unless this might cause harm, in which case quotes should be anonymous such they can’t be retraced via a search engine but without losing the essence of their meaning. As such researchers can assume that contributors are likely to be happy that it is linked to, copied or cited, such as public blogs and comments left on news websites.

• Private space - where users would expect their comments to be private and available only to genuine community members. These are often called ‘walled gardens’ or ‘cloisters’. Such spaces require registration and passwords and include private forums, communities, chat rooms and instant messaging. There was a clear consensus that researchers require permission from the site owner to carry out work and users cannot be identified without their prior consent, anonymous citing is essential unless users’ permission for verbatim has been obtained. We also discussed how important it was in these spaces to identify oneself as a researcher to those you are conversing with, there was little support for covert ‘lurking’ in these spaces although some researchers had conducted studies in this way.  We recognised the similarities here to older ethical discussions about the ethics of undertaking covert/overt participant observation.

• Semi-public spaces – one member of the group raised the issue that between private and public there are a semi-public set of spaces. The point was that in some cases the boundary between public and semi-public space is often be blurred, e.g. Facebook, a series of homepages and many niche (but open) forums or communities, open chat rooms and Twitter. These are semi-public as people contribute content and whilst open to all to read, many would not expect it to be read or used by people not interested in that topic. The first point the group agreed on was that if in doubt researchers are encouraged to treat sites as ‘semi-public’ not public which led on to broad agreement that research can be carried out subject to essentially the same terms as those within a private space.

• Market research spaces – these are spaces that have been created for market, social and opinion research purposes where users have been specifically informed of its function and the use to which their comments might be put. Typically (but not always) these are also private spaces and include Market Research Online Communities (MROC’s) and online ethnographic (netnographic) and co-creational techniques (crowdsourcing) which utilise social media platforms. Due to the nature of these sites researchers face relatively few restrictions but that researchers here have clear responsibilities to consider if verbatim quotes could cause harm to respondents.

With apologies to those who contributed to the discussion whom I can’t all name as it was my first time meeting you all. Thank you for a lively discussion, which I found thought provoking. I look forward to meeting you all again in September.

Andrew Whalley is a teaching fellow in Marketing at Royal Holloway.