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

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. :)

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

Sigh.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

GladAllOver

I can't make my mind up whether posts like that are goady or just tin foil hat.
As has been posted many many MANY times those that have opted out understand this.
Posters repeating it seem to have nothing better to do.

@cobwebsinthebelfr

That is a matter for supervisory committees/examinaminers or peer reviewers, not ethics committees, though.

But, again, you do not know anything about what is being researched or the methods used, so you really can't evaluate them.

For example, behaviour on message boards can only be assessed by, well, looking at posts on message boards.
Conversely, if you got people to reply to a survey about their own behaviour on messageboards, you'd get all sorts of biases, as well as blatant lying.

Well Boney, I'm glad they have all confided that message to you, because they haven't all stated so in their opt-out requests.

Nobody likes spam, though. Even if supposedly for research.

GladAllOver

So your belief is that posters that have opted out of this piece of research being done on MN believe that they have opted out of all pieces of research done on MN even the research that isn't known about?

That is good to know.

Boney, you have a vivid imagination. I haven't said they believe either that or the contrary, since the majority have not stated their understanding. Some certainly have though, and good for them.

GladAllOver

I may indeed have a vivid imagination but I am not the one making up scenarios.

you'd get all sorts of biases, as well as blatant lying.

What, more than usual?

Not more than usual, but if you can observe behaviour it's better than asking.

Just disputing the statement that it's "bad science".