@EnFinale

Thanks for the update *@RowanMumsnet*. Now the data have been collected then surely we can know now what the focus/research question was?

Sorry, I didn't get a notification about this one for some reason.

Yes, I don't see why not - it sounds as though they've collected all the data - it was about how parents on MN talk about feeding babies, whether breastfeeding, bottle feeding or mixed feeding. (I think some of you guessed this at the time!)

Right, the researchers say "Collecting the data we needed took a little bit more time than what we initially anticipated (in fact a lot more time!) so things are progressing a little bit slower than the plan.

We, however, have a linguist on board now and we are looking on the best and most meaningful way to analyse the data.

Of course when we have any outputs we will let you know."

So, as soon as I have something I'll pass it on

[quote dipstyque]@RowanMumsnet. Did this research ever materialise?[/quote]

Good question! I can't believe this was a year ago . I'll see what I can find out for you

Hello

Just because some of you are obviously interested - here's the most recent piece of Mumsnet research we've spotted: a v interesting study of how Mumsnet users talk about and advise each other on the topic of financial conflict within relationships www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2018/10/mumsnet-talking-money-and-men-behaving-badly.aspx. (We didn't know this one was happening!)

Our favourite quote so far from the study: 'The term ‘cocklodger’ interests us because it identifies a type of household arrangement that is not considered in the academic literature, and yet is a frequent point of reference on Mumsnet' ...

c)

And yes, sort of But it's been interesting - it feels like GDPR has pushed a big change in how data subjects (ie people) feel about things like this and in the long run that sort of awareness is probably for the good. Having these sorts of discussions play out is all part of the process innit.

No, we get no money or inducements or gifts or anything at all.

I don't think they did actually for that one, although Professor Pedersen has done quite a few analyses of Mumsnet posts over the years and she's given us the heads-up about a few of them (as with this study, we didn't give them any access to anything private/back-end, they were just analysing what they could see on the public boards). We don't think GDPR materially changes the situation but it feels like it's changed the public conversation, and this time around our thinking was that - as we'd been given the heads up - informing MNers, while not strictly necessary, was in the spirit of the new regulations.

@Jux

I reckon it's about swearing. Do we swear more when talking about baby names of when.we talk about Trump. Obvious, innit?

The Economist did actually analyse Mumsnet forums to this effect a few months back (without asking or telling us) - IIRC they concluded that MNers swear most when talking about their husbands/partners...

Oh right sorry - no, we're not using any software or any process at all to send the posts on to them - the researchers are just reading the forum.

Sorry sassitude I must have missed the notification.

We are not passing anything at all to the researchers - no 'further info' whatsoever other than the list of usernames who have opted out.

They didn't need to tell us they were doing it - they did so out of courtesy.

Hello - sorry for not answering this sooner. The researchers are from two separate universities and we can't see a way to specify their institutions without making it possible for posters to work out what the study is about, because they've published on this topic together before. Similarly with their names - it will make it obvious what the topic is.

Here's our list so far: please shout if we've left you off

yawning801
ItsAllGoingToBeFine
SneakyGremlins
MaverickSnoopy
DoryNow
Hatstand
LuluJakey1
EastMidsGPs
PinkAvocado
seafret
electriccandlelight
ShrodingersSturdyPyjamas
luckycat007
fleshmarketclose
havingalittlebabytoolshed
SturdyEarmuffs
charliethefeminist
LumpSatAloneInABoggyMarsh
shakeyourcaboose
Mrsramsayscat
mummysparkle
Notmethistimehonest
SteamTrainsRealAleandOpenFires
traceyturnblatt
MsDidoTwite
EggysMom
woman11017
LEMtheoriginal
AntiBi
littlepill
graphista
user1483387154
JoyTheUnicorn
silentcrow
Shadowfax07
Pythagonal
PutYourShirtOnMartin
IdahoJones
FermatsTheorem
NameChangedAgain18
DuckingGoodPJs
BesmirchingMotherhood
fanomoninon
Amalfimamma
theaccidentaleconomist
JillCrewesmum
OvaHere
Lysistrataknowsherstuff
Kintan
Cockapoomummy
sansouci
BadderWolf
TheCatFromOuterSpace
GONNAENo
JeffreyNeedsAHobby
Cuntysnark
Haquina
Sociopathsunited
5000KallaxHoles
TheGirlOnTheLanding
Quangot
Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar
Stormyumbrella
EnidButton
MipMipMip
Voldesnort
GorgonLondon
IFartGlitter
Karyatide
GarethSouthgatesWaistcoat
LizzieMacQueen
Brizzledrizzle
NotTheWayISeeIt
Twosunbathingdogs
SassitudeandSparkle
Gingerivy
BoneyBackJefferson
ChestyNut
ChasedByBees
Anotherangel2
ClosdesMouches
FenellaMaxwellsPony
PortiaCastis
Maryzsnewaccount
PaulDacreRimsGeese
WaitrosePigeon
Toriap2
MaisyPops
Balljuggla
TheSassyAssassin
WhiskyIrnBru
Rosetintedglass
Ylvamoon
TufVoyaging
KateMcD451
Wheresthebeach
Bloodylucky
BusyBee27
Ocelot41
EddieVeddersfoxymop
Lozaa
Ohdeardeardear
TheRealHousewifeofCheshire
TheWanderlust
FrustratedTeddyLamp
Shutupandgotosleep

Thanks Freia, Yes, it's a shame that researchers who are upfront are in effect penalised, while those who just go ahead without asking aren't. As you say, though, the numbers of people opting out (and we are fine with people opting out - that's why we asked) are a small proportion of MNers, so hopefully it won't have a big impact on the study.

Someone asked if the research is to do with advertising. It isn't, the topic being studied has no commercial/revenue aspect at all. (Sorry, I do realise it's frustrating that we keep saying 'no it's not that'!)

And yes we will be sharing the study with you all once it's written up.

Morning all

Thanks for the posts. We'll go through and compile the full list so far (of people who've spoken up on this thread, not of people who've emailed us) and post it up on here so that you can double-check your name is included.

We've edited the OP now to make this clearer - thanks

And thanks also to those opting out - we'll add your names

It is only stuff in the public domain and no, they didn't need to ask us - but as they did (which we think was courteous of them; lots of researchers don't) we thought the most ethical thing would be to let you know.

Would be interesting to know whether MNers think in a future scenario we should do the same thing (ie start a thread to let you know)?

Yes, you'll need to let us know again - you can email us on [email protected] if you'd rather, but you can just post again on this thread as though it was the first time you'd posted (so as not to expose the NC)

Yes, essentially! Although it's not about cockwomble usage...

They're being given no access at all to anything in the back end - nothing beyond what they can see on the public boards

[quote CoteDAzur]**@MNHQ* Are you providing these researchers with any* information about MNers?[/quote]

No - they'll just be reading the boards in the same way that anyone with an internet connection can

[quote C8H10N4O2]@RowanMumsnet can we get some clarity on the following points:

1. Will researchers use public posts only or also have access to "deleted" and "withdrawn" posts?

no

2. Will researchers be using surrogate names for posters and therefore be able to string together posts from a single poster?

We will ask them

3. If the answer to (2) is "yes" will this surrogate username persist across NCs?

No, the researchers will know nothing about namechanges

4. Will IP addresses be passed on?

no

5. will details of advertising presented to the user be passed on?

no

6. Will any information of any kind whatsoever, held on users, be passed on to the researchers? (including geographic location, numbers of children etc, family details, surveys responded to etc etc etc)

no[/quote]

Nothing to do with parents attending uni/posts about academic institutions - just to set your mind at rest (hopefully)

It would definitely make a good one. (It's not though!)

The researchers won't be told (and haven't asked to be told) anything about users' namechanges.

If you have opted out and then namechange and are still keen to be excluded you'll need to let us know about the namechange - you can just add another post here (other users won't know you've NCd) or email us on [email protected] if you'd rather

There's no need to worry about any namechanges up to the point this thread was started - the research is not retrospective

We at MNHQ are not being paid for this at all, nor are there any other inducements. We think the topic they're exploring is one our users will find interesting so we've asked that we be allowed to share the research with you when it's published.