Heads up: some academic research taking place

You don't know the topic or the question or the methods to conclude it's bad science. It doesn't make it bad science because it's MN.

Lweji It doesn't matter what the source is, there is a rigorous way to conduct scientific research, at least in the UK and many other countries, and then there are unregulated, unrepeatable and careless ways, which I suggest is what's going on here. Most institutions should prefer to conduct research that actually yields useful, meaningful information.

Using MN as a data source seems to me to be just lazy and unimaginative, but as I've outlined that's not my criticism.

Perhaps, but I'll be honest researchers on things like this can get whatever they want from data as long as they phrase their questions a certain way.
It's like the silly correlation graphs people make. There's a positive correlation between autism diagnoses and sales of organic food. And there's a correlation between cheese consumption and number of people who die by being tangled in their own bedsheets. Neither of those things prove anything.

The only thing they could reasonably say is a bunch of random people asked to opt out of a study.

Also as noted above, the list of opted-out posters' names is available on here for anyone to download.
It might be an interesting exercise for someone to look at their other posts across Mumsnet to see why they didn't want to be used in that study and if they have anything in common with other opters-out.
So asking to be left out of that one study may actually result in closer attention to their posts in other studies.

Really not sure where the irony comes in, Posters are offered a chance to not take part in research (turns out that its two pieces of research) and take it.

I thought the irony was clear.
Everyone who has posted on here to opt out of the study, has created another post that won't be opted out, and can be used for any other studies. For what that may be worth.

So, when you post data on here, what permissions do you think you are giving with regards accessing that data? I can access on MN, as can anyone else on the internet. Media organisations can access it and reproduce it, allowing all their readers to comment on it. What makes the researchers different? Apart from they are not using usernames with the data so it is less identifiable than it is on MN or the MailOnline? And, not meaning any disrespect to Social Science researcher, available to a much, much smaller audience.

But yes, people have been offered the right to opt out. I understand that bit.

You don't know the topic or the question or the methods to conclude it's bad science.

It doesn't make it bad science because it's MN.

Lweji, aside from anonymising and being in the public domain, it's bad science, you do realise?

Sigh.

I don't want my post to be included.

I do not consider this data gathering exercise ethical because of the nature of the MN site and the necessity of posters to have to opt out of the study instead of opting in. That means that the subject sample would have had their data accessed without their approval. Any 'science' that the analysis and findings might be produced would be without rigour for that reason, and the exercise would have been pointless.

Is MN not curious at to how the particular institutions's ethics committee passed the application for research when the method was described? No scientific study worthy of attention would use data obtained without the permission of the participants, in this case MN users. Peer review alone would cast doubt on any findings and the institutions's resources would have been wasted.

Bad show.

Ironically, anyone asking to be opted out of the study that started this thread will still be quoted in any study that includes this thread, because they haven't been given the opportunity to opt out of this one.

Really not sure where the irony comes in, Posters are offered a chance to not take part in research (turns out that its two pieces of research) and take it.

Only a fucking idiot would think that they/we believe that this extends to other research that is unannounced or where opting out isn't offered.

I am curious as to how the ethics of this gets passed in the universities.

What is curious about it?
They are using something in the public domain. How is it unethical?

I am curious as to how the ethics of this gets passed in the universities

Admittedly it was ten years ago but I did corpus analysis of posts on public FB groups for my diss. Names and pics were removed but that's all - no one turned a hair.

Ironically, anyone asking to be opted out of the study that started this thread will still be quoted in any study that includes this thread, because they haven't been given the opportunity to opt out of this one.

Even more ironically, they will be included in the study as the number of people who have refused to be included.

You may be very sure that Mumsnet posts have been used for other studies, are being used now, and will be used in the future, for academic and marketing research.

On this one occasion, posters have been given an opportunity to opt out. That's fine. But that opt out won't apply to any of the other studies, where MNHQ isn't informed of them taking place.

Ironically, anyone asking to be opted out of the study that started this thread will still be quoted in any study that includes this thread, because they haven't been given the opportunity to opt out of this one. :)

Indeed. Data already anonymised and in the public domain, provided by the source, in the full understanding that it's public. Nothing for an ethics committee to worry about. Or even want to look at it.

I'm not sure why people are raising issues about how this got past the ethics committee at the university. Usually the ethics committee will only have to approve if you are gathering primary data, there is no requirement for ethics committee approval for the use of secondary data

Feel free to use my post content, happy to help with research

Please do not include me in the study

I'd like to be removed from the study

It may be too late now as they could already have extracted the data from the website.
But these studies have apparently happened before and will very likely happen again in the future.
The only difference this time is that the people using the data have told MNHQ and they have told us.
It's very likely that that they will avoid this fuss in future by not consulting MNHQ, since they are not obliged to do when using public data.

Having done my own research analysis read MN post instead of skimming over it won’t be the ‘Vulnerable topics’.

As for sententive ones well that’s tricky as always some delicate snowflake it’s like the thread about upset toddler and broken banana except it’s with adults.

It will be how you mere mortals interact with each other on certain topics I guessing.

I spy with my observing eye this thread is duplicated elsewhere here recently.

Incase you want to put on ur Sunday best and not call anyone a twat 😂

I mean from all pps.
Yes, you have to make assumptions but you treat them statistically.
For example, how many posts are likely tio be fake.
Which is different from analysing individual stories and then publishing those in depth analysis, which is what might upset vulnerable pps.
I can't see how an analysis of all dv pps over 10 years can be individually upsetting, for example. Unlike a study of one pp with quotes.
But you can't rely on that individual post to be true, anyway.
While you can, for example, make an analysis of types of dv reported more or less frequently.

Lweji

But if you take them altogether it just means that you either have to assume something about them or have a pile of information that you can't trust.

Remembering that when taking something form an open forum you will have to make assumptions about the content.

I'd like to be removed from the study

Yes, but it's different when you take them all together.

Lweji
If nothing else because no researcher could ever be sure if it was even remotely true.

Surely this is true of any post on the internet.