Using Big Data to Solve Social Science Problems

Curtis Jessop is a Senior Researcher at NatCen Social Research and is the Network Lead for the NSMNSS network

On Wednesday 29^th June I attended a roundtable hosted by our network partners SAGE on using big data to solve social science problems. It was a great day, with contributions from leading researchers and lots of discussion of some of the key issues of working with big data in social science.

Jane Elliott began with an overview of the ESRC’s Big Data Network. She identified the difficulties with data access that earlier phases had faced, but also highlighted key challenges that big data social science currently faces:

1. Methodological

• Can we apply the same qualitative techniques/statistical inferences we have in the past?
• Are social scientists (falling) behind in using machine learning & algorithms? What are the implications of these methods?

2. Relevance of research

• Making sure we use big data to answer pertinent social science questions, and not just focus on methods

3. Ethics at a macro & micro level

• Working ethically with big data - data security, anonymity, informed consent & data ownership
• What are the implications of a ‘big data society’/algorithm-led decision making?

New methods, tools and techniques for big data research

Giuseppe Veltri outlined how data-driven science differs from ‘traditional’ social science research as it generates hypotheses and insights from the data, rather than theory, combining abductive, inductive & deductive approaches. Further, Phillip Brooker identified a tension in big data analysis between wanting to use qualitative research approaches with data of a scale that requires numerical treatment. As a result, social scientists need to work with ‘unfamiliar’ techniques and software.

Tools for Big Data analysis

It was generally agreed that existing software are not fit for addressing academic/social science research questions. Also, tools offered by commercial companies are often ‘black boxes’, when social scientists need to be transparent on the algorithms they use as they are part of the methodology.

Many at the roundtable have therefore developed their own tools (e.g. COSMOS, Textonics, Chorus, & Method52 from CASM) to enable them to conduct analysis in a manner they wanted to. However, it was felt there was still some way to go - many of these tools are ‘in-house’ and ongoing funding/support is needed to develop something more stable, well-supported, and ‘outward facing’.

Interdisciplinary working

One approach to addressing the challenges of big data analysis is working in interdisciplinary teams (in particular linking between social & computer science departments). Luke Sloan and Mark Carrigan identified the key challenge of this at a ‘human level’ is ensuring a common understanding of language, after which it was easy to have an open discussion and there were rarely disagreements. Mark argued that what was key was not necessarily making sure that everyone had the same definitions, but that there was an understanding that different fields may have different perspectives.

Mark Kennedy, based on his experiences at the Data Science Institute, emphasised the importance of ‘getting excited’ about the right research question, not just focusing on the technology, and then building a team based on what skills you need to fill that gap.

However, attendees felt that there were structural barriers to interdisciplinary working in academia – departmental silos, geography, navigating different funding bodies, finding journals to publish in, and demonstrating value for the REF were all recognised as problems, although it was also mentioned that funding increasingly supported this approach.

Training in the social sciences

Quite early in the discussion, the question was raised that if there is such a clear skills gap in the social sciences, why had universities not responded to it?

Although it was accepted that training needed to address big data methods, there were differing opinions on how feasible this might be. Adding new techniques into methods courses was welcomed, but to what extent was this achievable when these are already packed covering ‘traditional’ methods? Further, given the relative rarity of established social scientists with this skill-set, who would provide this teaching?

Although it was felt that new students are open to using Python or R/new statistical techniques, this scarcity of trainers with the skills to teach both programming and its application within social sciences was again identified as a problem. Giving students (and academics) access to data science training materials that are framed by social science problems, and relevant dummy data to work with, was suggested as a way to start addressing this.

Answering social science questions with Big Data

While discussing his own research, Slava Mikhaylov highlighted that a good way to make impact is, rather than starting with a research question, to aim to solve a problem. This was echoed by Carl Miller, who outlined some principles that Demos follow for making impact:

• Look beyond academic funders – if research is funded by a government department, they’re going to have to listen to it!
• Ask the right question – what is interesting to a researcher vs. a policy maker
• Answer quickly – policy interests change, and research won’t make an impact if everyone’s moved on
• Diversify outputs – can they be real-time, interactive, engaging?
• Networking – who are the champions of big data research?

 Carl emphasised that was just the approach that Demos used, and may not be appropriate for all research or audiences. He also mentioned you need to work hard in a new discipline to be responsible and transparent about what your research doesn’t do or say.

Ethics of research using Big Data

Anne Alexander differentiated between the ethics of research using big data and the ethics of doing research in a networked world.

On the latter, Anne felt that there has not been enough reflection on the implications of the ‘datafication’ of human interaction, and that we need to de-mystify these processes and consider what the use of machine learning/algorithms means for society (e.g. their potential for discrimination).

Anne emphasised the need to take into consideration the public’s views on this when considering Big Data research, a point re-enforced by Steve Ginnis, whose work at Ipsos Mori on developing ethical guidelines for social media research drew on public ethics, existing industry guidelines and legal frameworks.

Steve’s research identified that the public both have low awareness of, and are not keen on, their social media data being used for research. This was not just due to concerns about privacy/anonymization – people were uncomfortable with being profiled and its possible implications.

That said, participants were willing to weigh up the risks and benefits, and context (who is doing the research and why) was important. Nonetheless, the ‘fundamentals’ (consent, what information, anonymization, etc.) played a much larger role in whether they felt research using social data was appropriate.

Both Anne & Steve emphasised that ethics is an ongoing process, not a one-off event at the start of a project – they need to be considered at the collection, analysis and publication stages of the research cycle.

Some concluding thoughts

Carl Miller identified that in the context of pressure for evidence-based policy, digital by default, and the open data initiative, there has never been a better time for social scientists to make impact with big data research.

Wednesday’s session demonstrated how far big data analysis in the social sciences has come over recent years and it is impressive to hear how much work has been put into developing the tools and methods to mould this rich, but novel, form of data into social insights.

However, the session also showed that there are number of areas that still need to be addressed if we are to make the most of big data:

• Access to large data sets continues to be an issue, be they proprietary, public, or administrative. We need to bargain collectively to talk to large, often global, actors and argue for academic access.
• There is a skills gap among social scientists for analysing big data, and support is needed to help develop the required methodological and programming skills.
• The interdisciplinary working required for big data analysis can be challenging, and we need to work to enable effective collaboration.
• Developing an ethical approach to big data analysis is challenging given its novelty, variety, and changing nature. Any framework needs to provide practical guidance to researchers while remaining flexible and responsive to changing contexts.
• Available tools for big data analysis can be expensive, lack transparency, or inappropriate for social science research. A maintained central library of available tools, with appropriate documentation and guidance could be extremely useful.

The future of social science blogging in the UK

Mark Carrigan is a sociologist and academic technologist and first wrote this blog post for his blog http://markcarrigan.net/. Contact Mark on Twitter @mark_carrigan

Earlier this week, NatCen Social Research hosted a meeting between myself, Chris Gilson (USApp, @ChrisHJGilson), Cristina Costa and Mark Murphy (Social Theory Applied, @christinacost & @socialtrampos ), Donna Peach (PhD Forum,Donna_Peach) and Kelsey Beninger (NSMNSS, @KBeninger) to discuss possible collaborations between social science bloggers in the UK and share experiences about developing and sustaining social science blogs over time. We didn’t do as much of the latter as I expected, though I personally found it valuable simply to voice a few concerns I’d had in mind about the direction of academic blogging that I’d heretofore been keeping to myself for a variety of reasons. The manner in which the audience for Sociological Imagination seems to have stopped growing over the last couple of years (unless I make an effort to tweet more links to posts in the archives) had left me wondering why I’d been operating under the assumption that the audience for a blog should be growing. I realise that I’d been working on the premise that an audience is either growing or it’s shrinking which, once I articulated it, came to seem obviously inaccurate to me. Considering this also raised questions about overarching purposes which I was keen to get other people’s perspectives on: what was the website for? To be honest I’m not entirely sure. After four years, it’s largely become both habit and hobby. It’s an enjoyable diversion. It’s a justification for spending vast quantities of time reading other sociology blogs. I’m invested in it as a cumulative project, such that even if I stopped enjoying it, I’d probably feel motivated to continue. I’m still preoccupied by how genuinely global it has become, something which feels valuable in and of itself. I’ve also had enough positive feedback at this point (I never know quite how to respond when people send ‘thank you’ e-mails but they’re immensely appreciated!) that all these other factors, essentially constituting its value for me, find themselves reflected in a sense that it’s clearly valuable for (some) other people as well.

Much of the early discussion at the meeting was about the limitations of metrics. It’s sometimes hard to know what to do with quantitative metrics of the sort that are so abundantly supplied by social media. What do they actually mean? Other people have seemingly had the same experience I’ve had of being provoked by these stats to wonder about what isn’t being measured e.g. if x number of people visit a post then how many people read the whole thing, let alone derive some value from it? We discussed the possibility of qualitative feedback, which is essentially what the aforementioned ‘thanks’ e-mails constitute, as something potentially more meaningful but difficult to elicit. Are there ways to pursue qualitative feedback from the audience of a blog? Cristina and Mark described their current project aiming to use an online questionnaire to get information about how Social Theory Applied is seen by readers and how the material is being used. Are there others ways to get this kind of feedback? Perhaps I should just ask on the @soc_imagination twitter feed? I guess the thing that makes me uncomfortable is the risk of slipping into a publisher/consumer orientation, given this is a relation so well established in contemporary society – I don’t see the people reading the site as consumers and I don’t see myself as a publisher. In fact I’ve found it immensely frustrating on a few occasions when I’ve felt people adopt the mentality of a consumer with me e.g. leaving a comment that “there’s no excuse for posting a podcast with such low audio quality” or “why haven’t you fixed the broken link on this [old] post?”. While I’d like to get qualitative feedback on Sociological Imagination, particularly more of a sense of how people use material on the site if it’s for anything other than momentary distraction, I basically have no intention of doing anything other than what I want with it, as well as leaving the Idle Ethnographer as my co-editor to do the same.

We also discussed a range of potential collaborations which we could pursue in future. One of my concerns about the general direction of social science blogging in the UK is that the LSE blogs and the Conversation might gradually swallow up single-author blogs – in the case of the former, the fact they often repost from individual blogs mitigates against this but I think there’s still a risk that single author blogging becomes a very rare pursuit over time, simply because it’s difficult to sustain it and build an audience while subject to many other demands on your time. I think the likelihood of this happening is currently obscured by academic blogging becoming, at least in some areas, slightly modish, in a way that distracts from the question of whether new bloggers are likely to sustain their blogging in a climate where their likely expectations are unlikely to be met by the activity itself. I like the idea of finding ways to share traffic and I suggested that we could experiment with aggregation systems of various sorts: perhaps framed as a social science blogging directory which people apply to join, at which point their RSS feed is plugged into a twitter feed that automatically aggregates all the other blogs on the list. Another possibility would be to use RebelMouse to create what could effectively be a homepage for the UK social science blogosphere (in the process perhaps bringing this blogosphere into being, as opposed to it simply being an abstraction at present). Chris Gilson suggested the possibility of creating a shared newsletter in which participating sites included their top post each week or month, in order to create a communal mailing which profiled the best of social science blogging in the UK. Despite being initially antipathetic towards it, this idea grew on me as I pondered it on the way home – not least of all because it could be a way to connect with audiences who are unlikely to read blogs on a regular basis. However while it would be easy to create prototypes of any of these to test the concept, it’s less obvious how they would work on an ongoing basis. The latter two would require a small amount of funding and/or someone willing to take on an unpaid task. Perhaps more worryingly from my point of view as someone who goes out of my way to avoid formal meetings in general and those concerned with elaborating procedures in particular, it seems obvious to me that some filtering criteria would be required (e.g. should blogs have to be continued past a certain point to join the aggregator? should there be quality criteria and, if so, who would assess them?) to ‘add value’ but I have no idea what these would be nor do I see how they could be fairly elaborated without a long sequence of face-to-face meetings that would likely prove tedious for all concerned. Perhaps I’m being overly negative, particularly since two of the ideas were my own, but I don’t see the point of writing a ‘reflection’ post like this and not being upfront about where I’m coming from.

We also discussed the possibility of longer term collaborations. Would social science blogging in the UK benefit from something like The Society Pages and, if so, how do we go about setting it up? I cautioned against overestimating the possible benefits of the umbrella identity TSP provides but I really have no idea. We discussed whether we should talk to the editors of the site in order to learn more about their experiences. I can certainly see the value in pursuing something like this and, as with the aggregators, it has the virtue of facilitating collaboration while retaining the individual identities of the participating sites – for both principled and practical reasons, I don’t want to collaborate in a way that dilutes the identity of the Sociological Imagination. Plus, even if I did, I’d have to ask the Idle Ethnographer and I suspect she feels even more strongly about this than I do. This discussion segued quite naturally into a broader question of how to fund academic blogging in the UK – framed in these terms, my initial ambivalence about pursuing funding melted away because I’d like nothing more than to find a way to fund blogging as an activity. My experiences at the LSE suggest this might be harder than it seems but we discussed this in terms of winning money to buy out people’s time to participate in these activities. I’ve always been an enthusiast for the LSE model of research-led editorship (as opposed to the journalist-led editorship of the Conversation, which I think leads to an often sterile product in spite of the faultless copy) so I’d like it if this possibility, as a distinctive occupational role in itself, doesn’t slip out of the conversation but it’s difficult for all sorts of reasons. I think it would also be beneficial to find ways of employing PhD students on a part-time basis, either for ad hoc assignments or work on an ongoing basis, given the retrenchment of funding and the congruence between the demands of a PhD and paid work of this sort. My one worry here is that the pursuit of funding undermines what I would see as the more valuable outcome of establishing blog editorship on an equivalent footing with journal editorship – given the latter does not, as far as I’m aware, factor into workload allocations anywhere, advocating that time for blog editing should be bought out risks preventing an equivalence between these two roles which I suspect would otherwise be likely to emerge organically over time.

My sense of the key issues facing the UK social science blogosphere:  

• How to share experiences, allow practical advice to circulate and facilitate the establishment of best practice
• Finding qualitative metrics to supplement the quantitative metrics provided by blogging platforms
• Making it easier for new bloggers to build audiences and promote their writing
• Experimenting with aggregation projects to help consolidate the blogosphere and share traffic
• Finding ways to fund social science blogging (for students, doctoral researchers and academics)
• Increasing the recognition of social science blogging as a valuable academic activity
• Ensuring that social science blogging remains a researcher-led activity and doesn’t get subsumed into institutionalised public engagement schemes
• Encouraging the development of group blogs as a type distinct from single-author blogs and multi-author blogs with designated editors

Project learning points from a new researcher: users’ views of social media research

Hannah is a researcher at NatCen Social Research, a non-political charity that specialises in social policy research. Before joining NatCen as a graduate research trainee in September 2012, she worked as an Employment Adviser to the long-term unemployed. Hannah is now based in NatCen’s Income and Work team and is involved in survey maintenance and smaller scale qualitative projects. Her research interests lie in poverty and disadvantage, and also now in social media use! You can follow Hannah on Twitter by searching @h_silvester.

Last year I was one of eleven lucky graduates taken on by UK based NatCen Social Research. To get hands on experience –and to make mistakes in a controlled environment! -we were given a year to develop and run a study with only minimal guidance from senior staff. Now nearing the end (we’re writing our report), we’d like to share some learning points.

As well as specializing in independent social policy research, NatCen has always prided itself on methodological innovation. For example it has recently set-up with partners the ‘New Social Media, New Social Science’ network to look at what opportunities social media research can provide. The network and NatCen are particularly interested in the use of social media websites and ethical practice when researching online.

Taking these two interests one step further, our graduate project looked at what users of social media think about the ethics of research when it uses their posts and other information. So now let’s take a frank look at the key things we learnt while working on this qualitative, exploratory study.

Definition, definition, definition!

While it’s normal for potentially interesting side issues to crop up, or for other areas to be discounted, you should develop the focus of your research as early as possible and stick to it. Having a clear research focus will make creating the topic guide (interview schedule) easier and will influence your analysis and report planning.

Define key terms: again, choose as early as possible. Terms should preferably be ‘current’ elsewhere. We argued considerably over ‘social media websites’ vs. ‘social networking sites’ and our report editor is still exasperated we’re referring just to ‘sites’! We also had to decide between participants, respondents, people and ‘social media users’ (the latter won) –the more precise the better!

‘I work better the night before a deadline’

Allow yourself realistic time to complete a task if it’s your first time doing it, but don’t then fall into the trap of thinking ‘I’ve got aaages yet! –no one truly works better the night before a deadline!

Order, order!

Have someone (preferably the project lead) draw up an agenda (and more importantly, stick to it!) for each meeting and limit the meeting time. This will help make sure any discussion is concise and to the point.

Don’t be too democratic

While it might seem fair that everyone in the project team is given a chance to  comment on written outputs, the old adage ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ is definitely true! Instead, we found that an initial set up meeting, for parts of the project like drafting the topic guide, is helpful to generate ideas that are then consolidated and written up by one member. The chosen project manager will then ultimately have the final say and editing duties.

Recruitment

We were able to recruit from an established sample (used previously for NatCen’s renowned British Social Attitudes survey). Because the survey had already asked participants about their internet use, we had good information on key sample criteria and could target our invitation letters. Unfortunately we found that the sample was too shallow once we’d set our primary/ quota criteria (we wanted a third of the sample to be ‘low’ internet users, a third ‘medium’ users and the rest ‘high’ users). While sometimes quotas may need to be revised we decided to fall back on our contingency plan: to use a recruitment agency. It was a little scary letting go of control and we had to emphasise our criteria a number of times, but in the end we got the right people to take part at the right time!

So, those are the learning points I want to leave you with and I hope they’ve been helpful. If you’re considering using social media websites in your work, our findings will hopefully help people think about how they carry out this kind of research. If you’re keen to find out how, and you really can’t wait until December (I don’t blame you), do read this blog for our interim findings and feel free to email me with any questions!

 This Post was first published on http://socphd.wordpress.com/ 

Digital Sociology PhD/ECR Workshop @ Goldsmiths University of London February 19th 2014

Are you a PhD student or Early Career Researcher doing work in digital sociology? The BSA Digital Sociology Group has organised a PhD/ECR Workshop where a limited number of participants can get feedback on their work from peers and established academics in a supportive environment.

The event will take place between 11am to 4pm on February 19th at Goldsmiths College in South London. Confirmed academic respondents are Emma Uprichard (Warwick) and Noortje Marres (Goldsmiths) with one or two more TBC soon.

If you would like to register then please e-mail mark@markcarrigan.net with a short bio and 200 to 300 word abstract. The exact format of the day hasn’t been finalised yet but the intention will be to allow substantial time for discussion of each presentation so places will be extremely limited.

Empathy and Trust In Communicating Online (EMoTICON) Sandpit Expressions of Interest Called for ...

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is working in partnership with ESRC, EPSRC, Dstl and CPNI, to commission new research to develop a greater understanding of how empathy and trust are developed, maintained, transformed and lost in social media interactions. A five–day intensive workshop will be held on 6-10 January 2014 at Cranage Hall in Cheshire, and they are currently inviting expressions of interest for people to attend. 

To find further information about this event visit the AHRC website at the following link:

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-Opportunities/Pages/Empathy-and-Trust-In-Communicating-Online-(EMoTICON)-Sandpit.aspx

NSMNSS twitter takeover: social media & social scientists in action!

I've been NSMNSS twitter manager for a few weeks now. It's a fantastic opportunity to extend my network, to understand how social media is shaping social science, and to champion the use of social media within teaching, learning, research and engagement. 

Whilst it's been an enjoyable few weeks, my voice alone is not doing justice to the diversity and wealth of research and interest in this area. There are so many different perspectives on the impact of social media within the NSMNSS community and beyond. Therefore we want to open up the account by inviting social scientists using social media and/or carrying out research in this area to become NSMNSS curators. 

Each curator will take over the Twitter account for the week and share content and thoughts of interest to our followers. If you would like to curate the NSMNSS account, I would love to hear from you. Please contact me by email: j.m.condie@salford.ac.uk or twitter @nsmnss @jennacondie.