Missed out? Read the twitter feed from our chat on changing role of researchers in a social media world

See below for the twitter feed from our tweetchat on 9th December 2014 all about the changing role of researchers involved in online and social media research. Scroll to the bottom and work your way up to follow the conversation in the order it occured.

A summary of the 5 questions posed to those taking part is included below:

Q1: How is social media impacting upon you as a researcher? E.g. identity, work/life balance, ethics
Q2: How is social media changing our identities as researchers?
Q3 from @einterview: How does insider-outsider position influence your role, identity,access or objectivity?
Q4 from @newbiephd: What does it mean to be ‘virtually ethical’?
Q5: What are the key issues around social media for researchers going forward?
Q6: What topics shall we chat about on #NSMNSS in the new year?

Tweets about #nsmnss since:2014-12-09 until:2014-12-10

The changing nature of who produces and owns data: How will it impact survey research?

Brian Head is a research methodologist at RTI International. This post first appeared on SurveyPost on 20 May, 2014. You can follow Brian on Twitter @BrianFHead.

Survey researchers have become interested in big data because it offers potential solutions to problems we’re experiencing with traditional methods. Much of the focus so far has been on social media (e.g., Tweets), but sensors (wearable tech) and the internet of things (IoT) are producing an increasingly rich, complex, and massive source of data. These new data sources could lead to an important change in how individuals see the data collected about them, and thus have ramifications for those interested in gathering and analyzing those data.

Who compiles data?

Quantitative data about people have been gathered for millennia. But with technological advances and identification of new purposes for it, the past 100 years have seen significant increases in the amount of data produced and collected—e.g., data on consumer patterns and other market research, probability surveys, etc.

Common to these data are three factors: 1) the data are a commodity compiled, used, or traded by third parties; 2) generally there are no direct benefits to individuals about whom data are gathered; and 3) the organizations interested in the data gather, store, and analyze it. All this is not to say that throughout history individuals haven’t collected information about themselves. Individuals have collected qualitative data in the form of diaries and biographies. And, they have collected some quantitative data but this has generally to satisfy a third-party (e.g., collecting financial information to file taxes). But, now in addition to all of the data others compile about them, new technologies like wearable technologies (sensors) and IoT devices allow people to voluntarily produce and compile massive amounts of data about themselves and doing so can have a direct benefit to them. (Involuntary data collection through connected devices is already taking place—e.g., internet connected devices are being used for geo-targeting advertising).

Who owns or controls data?

Data are collected in different ways. Census data are collected periodically (intervals vary by nation) through a mandatory government data collection. Surveys generally operate under the requirement of voluntary participation, although there are exceptions.  Much of the consumer data gathered now is done surreptitiously. Examples include browser cookies that collect information about the websites we visit, search engines that collect information about the internet searches people conduct, email providers that scan emails, and apps that use geodata to market goods and services to prospective clients.

It seems the public is increasingly aware of and concerned with the sum of these data collections. According to a recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study large majorities of self-tracking app/device users think (84%) they do or want (75%) to own data that are collected with the device. There have been attempts to limit data collection, such as the recent attempt to limit the data the U.S. government collects on citizens.  Advocates of efforts like this tend to cite concerns over burden and privacy. The exponential growth of data collected both voluntarily and involuntarily through apps, sensors, and the IoT may cause similar (perhaps successful) attempts to change government and corporate policies to provide individuals more control over their data. In fact, market researchers are already beginning to respond to such an interest among consumers by offering to pay consumers for access to their browsing history, social network activity, and transactions they conduct online while at the same time giving those consumers control over which data they sell to the brokers.
As the amount of data collected about us increases, there’s a good chance individuals will increasingly see their data as their own, understand the value it has to various third parties, demand more control over it, and to be compensated for it. At first brush that may seem concerning. However, the type of compensation individuals’ desire for data will likely depend on how data will be used. For example, consumers are likely to continue to trade data for convenience in services (see thesis # 12). And, the RWJF report cited above suggests the usual leverages used to gain survey participation—e.g., topic salience and altruism—may work in gaining access to big data when the purpose of the study is for “public good research.”

Need for further research

Further research is needed in this area of big data to answer questions like: 1) to what extent, and how soon, will a larger proportion of the population begin to voluntarily use sensor and IoT devices; 2) will the general public continue to tolerate involuntary data collection when those data are collected by connected devices; 3) will the general public have opinions similar to early adopters in the RWJF about sharing personal data from connected devices with survey researchers; 4) will the leverages that work for gaining survey participation work for gaining access to personal big data or will new/additional leverages be needed; 5) will we be able to use techniques similar to those used to access administrative record data or will we need to develop new protocol for seeking permission to access these data? I look forward to seeing and contributing toward the research to answer these questions. What are your thoughts?

Blurring the limits between personal and professional life

María Belén Conti is a student in the Social Media MA at the University of Westminster.

As a journalist, I usually find myself in a difficult situation when it comes to social media: would it affect my job opportunities if I openly express my opinion of certain topics online as my friends do? Should I always be professional because if anything personal is filtered I will lose my credibility (major asset for a journalist)?

Some may say that the best solution is to have two different profiles, one for personal and other professional proposes (EFE, 2011; Restrepo, 2012). But again, the personal profile is there and the chance of information, opinions or photos filtering to audiences we don’t want to reach is still high.

“You have one identity...The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly... Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity”, said Mark Zuckerberg (quoted in Meikle and Young, 2012, p.129). But is that really the case?

As Erving Goffman (1959) points out in his book The presentation of self in everyday life, we are always performing different roles to different audiences: “When an individual appears in front of others, he knowingly and unwillingly projects a definition of situation, of which a conception of himself is an important part” (p.234-235).

In other words, we won’t show the same persona in our work, in front of our family or with our friends. And that doesn’t make us lose our integrity, even if Zuckerberg doesn’t agree. Those different audiences have different expectations of us, and therefore we will highlight those aspects that better fit the “front” we want to show in each performance.

But, what happens when social and networked media mix those audiences? What if they get access to the back stage that we want to keep private? After all, as Goffman points out, usually we relax when we know we are not being watched. However, with the increased visibility online, those chances are reduced. As Meikle and Young (2012) explain, “convergent media make the invisible visible” (p.129). So that brings me back to the beginning of this post: how does that affect our lives? Are the limits between professional and personal life blurred?

To address this issue, the concept of Foucault’s Panopticon is useful. It implies that the permanent visibility make us modify our behaviour, being more cautious than what we would be if not being watched (Thompson, 1995; Meikle and Young, 2012). I find it interesting that a study among long-distance students (Bregman and Haythornthwaite, 2003) -whose assignments include regular blogposts - confirm that we pay more attention to what we say and how we say it when we know we are being observed and that our contributions may be searched later:

“Every opinion, however well expressed, every joke, turn of phrase, and typographical error remains preserved, leaving a written legacy of an individual’s persona and style” (p.124-125).

The same can be said about photos, videos and opinions we publish online. If something is on the Internet, you cannot be sure it won’t be filtered. Even if we have good management of our privacy settings, our friends may comment or share that post and they may have different privacy settings than ours. So if we don’t want to risk something becoming publically available perhaps we better not publish it anywhere on the Internet.

References:

Bregman, A. and Haythornthwaite, C.(2003). Radicals of presentation: visibility, relation, and co-presence in persistent conversation. New Media & Society, 5 (1), 117-140. [online] Available from: Sage Publications. < http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.6651&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 30 November 2013]

EFE News Agency. (2011). Guía para empleados de EFE en redes sociales (Guide for EFE’s employees in social media). [online] Available from: <http://www.efe.com/FicherosDocumentosEFE/Gu%C3%ADaEFE-Redes.pdf> [Accessed 1 December 2013]

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Meikle, G. and Young, S. (2012). Media convergence: networked and digital media in everyday life, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Restrepo, H (2012). Borrador manual de estilo en redes sociales (Draft style guidelines for social media). [online] Available from: <http://es.scribd.com/doc/113601191/Borrador-Manual-de-Estilo-en-Redes-Sociales-Hernan-Restrepo> [Accessed 30 November 2013]

Thompson, J. (1995). The media and modernity: a social theory of the media, Cambridge: Polity Press

Reflections on the influence of social media on privacy

Akin Olaniyan is a student in the Social Media MA at the University of Westminster. 

Making sense of the obvious tension between online visibility and privacy is never going to be a straightforward thing for me. Having worked as a reporter and a corporate communication specialist for more than two decades, I have some sense of dealing with public scrutiny of my work. Until now, social media was just for me another platform. If you know newspapers, I used to think, you shouldn’t have problems functioning in the new environment that digital convergence has created.

Or so I thought.

Just weeks after arriving for the Social Media MA at Westminster University, I have come to agree with danah boyd that being visible through social media can both complicate and enrich our lives (boyd, 2012). Social media networking sites like Facebook and Twitter offer new ways of engagement that have collapsed the walls of privacy, sometimes with terrible consequences. Henry Jenkins captures this well when he says, ‘when people take media into their own hands, the results can be wonderfully creative; they can also be bad news for all involved.’ For me, herein lies the irony; the thought that we would be willing to trade off a slice of our privacy for a chance to make ourselves ‘visible.’

The culture of sharing that is one of the tenets of the convergent media environment may be fraught with minefields, but Castells’ point, that, ‘In our society, the protocols of communication are not based on a sharing of culture but on the culture of sharing’ (Castells, 2009) is useful here. The new environment has given us ‘power’ to determine what we create, remix, share, anytime we want and with those we choose.

True, in the social media environment, ‘the media are no longer what just what we watch, listen to or read – the media are now what we do’ (Meikle and Young, 2012). Oh! How we enjoy the newfound freedom, to do away with the middleman and reach out in our network. Never mind that I performed a similar role in a newspaper. Maybe it sounds out of place to ask whether social media serves a critical need. The status updates, the likes and the sometimes, meaningless chatter all serve a need. They bind us together. “Our playful conventions and in-jokes may create insider symbols that help groups to cohere’ as Baym (2010) notes very well.

Notwithstanding, it looks to me like Rosen’s description of the people formerly known as the audience is rather too ‘romantic’. For one, corporate media may no longer ‘own the eyeballs’ as he states but in this process of becoming more active, we lose something important as well. Given what I have leant in just a few weeks, boyd’s argument that, ‘when people assume you share everything, they don’t ask about what you don’t share’ (boyd, 2012), for me, sounds frightening even in the era of ‘Big Brother’. We all have a way of ignoring ‘Big Brother’ until we’re caught in uncompromising positions.

My mind went to Boyd’s position the story of the UK university students whose Facebook profiles were swiped by ratemash.com and published without permission, in the latest example of third party misuse of online data. The all pervasive power of both Facebook and Twitter, to be able to remove whatever exists of the thin line between the private and the public has got me taking a second look at my accounts on social media platforms.

My goal? Cut out all but the most important of my engagements online. Every text, every image and ever engagement is an opportunity to say something and connect. As Baym (2010) says, “…as people appropriate the possibilities of textual media to convey social cues, create immediacy, entertain, and show off for one another, they build for themselves, build interpersonal relationships, and create social concepts….” 

I realize as I do this though, that there’s a chance that I may miss out in other ways but the thought that my profile and other data can be taken, remixed and shared sounds worrying.

Maybe I’m old fashioned but I strongly think there’s a creepy feeling to having a text, say, an unflattering selfie made available on the scale that convergent media makes possible. But having seen the reaction of some of the students whose profiles were swiped by ratemash.com, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be embarrassed unless they were in showbiz.

References:

boyd, d. (2012): Participating in the always-on lifestyle. In: Mandiberg, M (ed.) The social media reader. New York/London: New York University Press, Pp 71-76

Jenkins, H. (2008): Convergence culture: Where old media and new media collide. New York/London: New York University Press

Castells, M. (2009): Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Meikle, G. and Young, S. (2012): Media convergence: Networked Digital media in everyday life. London: Palgrave

Baym, K. N. (2010): Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity

Rosen, Jay: The people formerly known as the audience. In: Mandiberg, M (ed.) The social media reader. New York/London: New York University Press, pp. 13-16