Social Research and community informing

In my quest to finally catch up with everything that I've saved in Pocket for the last month, I came across a post written by Rebecca (luckily not that long ago) where she asks:

Should those who study social media communities be required to  inform the community of the research results?

I think that this is both an easy, yet a very complicated question!  I believe that the ethical thing to do is to post to that community once your research is done (if not earlier) to let them know.  If it's on twitter for example I would expect the researcher(s) to post something on that community hashtag to indicate what the research was about and what the results were.  It's fairly easy (and free) to setup a Google Site or a Wikispace, or even a Weebly site to post a few pages about the research, you as researcher, and the findings.   Personally I think that it would be good, for research purposes, to invite commentary from that community so that they could read what you wrote and provide you with feedback if you completely misunderstood something.  This would be valuable to include in your published research.

If I quoted someone I would personally feel very weird about contacting them and saying "Hey!  I did this research and I used one of your quotes anonymously".  The reason I feel weird about going that extra step is that I've met many odd people (in real life and on the web) over the past twenty years who even if they said something publicly on the web, and even though I quoted them anonymously they would try to get me to remove it from my paper.  I get that some people can be weird like that (heck, I have momentary "WTF?!" moments when I meet people and they tell me that they read my blogs) but I don't want to argue with someone who's said something publicly about removing something from my paper. I think it's fair game.  Had they been participants in closed research where they signed on and they had the right to drop out at anytime, then that kind request is perfectly fair (even though it can mess up the research process). So, for me, not contacting the quoted people is more of a way to prevent headaches for me.

I think that internet community research has opened the door to a lot of interesting research.  In many cases it's also made it easier to join communities and do internet ethnographic work. However, it's also made it much more easy for people to not do the traditional things that people do with ethnographic work, such as getting the consent of people to be studied before joining a community. Since we can lurk and go undetected by the average member, I think it's made it easier for researchers to ignore the human element and treat  people online in a sterile way.  I think that this is something that we in the profession need to do a better job at: humanizing online research.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more

MOOC participation - open door policy and analytics

The other day I was reading ZML Didaktik on the topic of MOOC participants. In MOOCs, one of the big questions is why are people lurking and not participating? If more than 500 people join a MOOC, why are only 10% contributing with any amount of regularity?  On the same blog, in a previous blog post, I had commented (it was an open stream of thought really) that perhaps there should be an open enrollment period, and then if the system sees that certain participants are bellow a threshold of activity, the system may give them the option to self-identify as a lurker, or un-register from the class. This line of thought went along a view that compared to the traditional classroom; in a traditional classroom students register for the course, they can attend classes for a week and then decide whether or not they want to stay with the course or not. If they do stay with the course they know that there is a certain amount of "lurking" that they can get away with, but they do have
Read more

You've been punk'd! However, that was an educational experience

Image
It's now the end of Teaching Goes Massive: New Skills Required (aka #massiveteaching) on coursera. Well, almost, we still have a couple of days left. I guess that the lesson here is that we were (the "learners") were punk'd† by Paul-Olivier Dehaye of the Univerisity of Zurich. After that last blog post (and subsequent pickup of the post by George Siemens and others) Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle wanted to chat with me about this MOOC experience. I only had time for one of the two before things went to press, so my 15 minutes of fame went to IHE.  Both IHE and the C hronicle have written about the topic, and have received some information from Coursera on the incident.  Others have also written about it (see here , here and here ) It's surprising to me that the University, and Coursera, waited until after this thing was a big issue in order to respond in the class, and clue people into what was happening. On Wednesday (day 3 of Week 3/3 of the
Read more