Heads up: some academic research taking place

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Some researchers from a UK university are going to be collecting posts from some boards on Mumsnet over the next few weeks. They will be looking only at posts published from this point onwards. Selected posts will be anonymised (ie usernames will not be stored anywhere), and all processes will be GDPR-compliant.

EDITED BY MNHQ: to be clear, NO private or back-end data is being shared with the researchers and they will have NO access to any extra information about users. They will only be analysing published posts, ie things that are already in the public domain.

The researchers will analyse the text of the anonymised posts as part of their study. The full text of these anonymised posts will not be reproduced in the study - no pieces of text that make you or your situation identifiable will be published.

Once the study is complete, the database containing the anonymised posts will be destroyed.

Obviously we'd love to tell you what the study is about - but we can't because it will skew the results. However once the research has been completed we'll share it with you and you can read all about it. The academics running the study are people we've worked with before, and the topic is one we think lots of MN users will agree is interesting and useful.

IMPORTANT BIT: if you DO NOT want your posts to be considered for inclusion in the research, please shout here on this thread or email us on [email protected]

And of course let us know if you have any questions and we'll see if we can answer them.

Thanks

MNHQ

The only people that are pearl clutching are those saying things about those that have opted out.

Surely this is less of an issue than the articles published in newspapers etc which is already common knowledge.
Its a public forum they're not using anything that isn't already visible to anyone with internet access.

ZigZagZebras
One piece of lazy journalism is different to someone doing whatever with whatever data they might want, stored wherever they like etc.

For some of us the inability to give informed consent means we choose to opt out (whilst being entirely aware that what we post is public)

We cannot opt out of redtop rags stealing out posts or everyone reading them but on this occasion we've been given a choice to opt out so I've taken it and do not need the disrespect of others

I don’t want to take part either thanks!

One thing is for sure.

Anyone else wanting to use Mumsnet posts for a study certainly won't be asking MNHQ for the file. They will just use one of the standard site scraping programs to lift the text off the website. And that can include the usernames too. Job done.

Why - because people opted out?

Those participating in a study have the right to withdraw their data at any time, or to request anonymity. I think not using usernames would be appropriate. I would not like my username used.

No thanks, please don't include me.

So lets get this straight MN has offered people the chance to opt out.

Posters opt out

other posters ask why

get answers

those other posters now accuse opting out posters of getting their knickers in a twist, are thick, pearl clutchers, don't understand and are up in arms.

Seems to me that only one group is up in arms and are just spoiling for an argument.

Then there's the middle group who don't really care either way.

Why - because people opted out?

Very likely, yes. When conducting an anonymous study you don't want self-selected opt-ins or self-selected opt-outs, because either might skew the results.

I don't want any of my posts to be included thank you

GladAllOver

If they were that bothered they wouldn't have offered it as an option.

Please count me out, too.

I’m indifferent - it’s a public forum

No thanks. Dont want to be included in this either with this or my lrev username

Thanks

I don't want my posts to be included in the study Thankyou. As many others have said, I like the anonymity of MN and don't want my words analysed/scrutinised in anyway.

Please dont use my posts

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.

Keep me out of this as well please mnhq

I'm fine with this.

Honestly, this whole thing is a bit depressing though. Undoubtedly the dataset will be skewed by opt-outs (although actually it's probably a miniscule proportion of all users) so the university and MNHQ, by being open, are going to get less valid results for a piece of research in the public interest than a commercial organisation that routinely scrapes MN boards and performs content analysis to sell us crap or try to influence our opinions. Which they do. Because it works (for all those pointing out the methodological flaws in this study - it's not perfect, but that's not a reason to not do it).

I would think that after the whole Cambridge Analytica thing university ethics committees would be pretty cautious about anything involving social media, so the fact that this project got through one (along with the fact that they're not using any data not already in the public domain) suggests it's not going to be very controversial.

In answer to your question @RowanMumsnet, from an academic POV I'd say don't tell anyone in future to avoid bias in results, but I think this thread shows that you can expect a backlash if anyone happens to stumble across the study in the Journal of Obscure Content Analysis or whatever. So I guess it's your call.

Personally I think it's admirable that you informed users but somewhat quixotic. Perhaps the best approach would be to ask universities not to tell you about any work they plan to do in this way, just like the commercial organisations. Plausible deniability.

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.

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

Con I opt out too please