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

Does that sound less sinister?

No not really.

This isn't the first time MN has been used in research. I've just been reading about a study into the language of depression and guess what - MN forums were used as a control group!!! They analysed the language used by posters in internet forums. No idea whether or not those researchers had MNHQ approval or not but they did it anyway. This is what happens when you post on an open platform. People will use what is on that platform for anything they like, with or without your permission. Personally I have no problem with any posts/comments I have made being used.

Count me out thank you

@EscapeFromHubby

Not this study, by any chance?

Lweji Mon 10-Sep-18 10:55:10
www.indy100.com/article/people-with-depression-use-language-differently-heres-how-to-spot-it-8262771

I'd like to opt out please.

Count me out please.

Oh this is more fun - homework cheating spam!

Feckin hell that'll distort the research

Many, many more people see what we have written on this totally public forum than will ever read the paper and or thesis that this work will be reported in. I have no problem with my posts being used.

Same. I really don't mine.

I am curious as to how the ethics of this gets passed in the universities - from my experience the hoops you have to go to do this do not seem to cover this situation (ie are some of the people considered vulnerable - discussion about personal aspects, issues of mental health, details about children, foster care etc etc) ?

Everything on here is anonymous
Are you suggesting that the backgrounds of every poster should be checked to see if they are vulnerable?

mumsastudent

It will be quite interesting to see what assumptions have been made about the people that post on MN.

It's highly unlikely that sensitive threads are picked apart.
If nothing else because no researcher could ever be sure if it was even remotely true.
Research will look into trends and averages, probably.

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.

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

I'd like to be removed from the study

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 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.

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'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.

Please do not include me in the study

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

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

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.