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

As I'm not a parent, please don't include any of my posts.

I don't want any of my posts included.

And you can count me out too. If I'm consenting to research I want to know who's doing the work and preferably who it's being funded by.

Posting it hidden away like this smells of the plans being on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

I’ve opted out already but want to make sure this includes all of my usernames, as I change regularly.

I'd like to opt out please.

I’m confused about why we’re being given a chance to opt-out. If they’re only using our public posts it’s not at all necessary.

Is it to try to secure ethics approval because these academics will get extra behind the scenes information about posters, such as name changes? (If so then I don’t want to “take part” in this.)
I’m guessing it’s about breastfeeding language vs formula feeding language.

Do not include any of my posts or comments

TO:- mountain ash.

EVEN MORE POSTERS ARE JOINING THE "OPT OUT"!.

We (as in MNHQ) haven't sought a veto - we've worked with these researchers before (not on pieces of research, but we know their work and have collaborated on activities in their area of interest).

So mnhq decided to allow "these researchers" to trawl through our posts in the past without telling informing us!. So why inform us now?. Also which Uni is this?

So why haven't mnhq sought a veto (& in which sense of the meaning of "veto"), BTW you're going to get a load of "opt outs", which will skew-whiff (is this the right spelling?) results?, surely it would be US to DECIDE?

So how much cash were you lot given, for us to be used like lab vermin?

Posting it hidden away like this smells of the plans being on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

I think you forgot about the stairs & the light btw.

Count me out. I do NOT consent to this. That includes ALL my usernames. I also DO NOT give you consent to tell them OR to indicate in any way that my usernames are linked! (eg by inc only my names on an opt out list to them). Shocking that I even feel the need to say that. Any GDPR experts about?

A - we should have been given more notice

B - mnhq should have made it more visible, I'm on mn a lot and this is the first time I've seen this

C - you're telling us nothing about how they're gathering the info or if you're giving them access to info that ISN'T publicly available

D - I too think it's unethical to have an opt out criteria when frankly it's doing the researchers a favour! Poor of mnhq not to know what the ethics committee know/have said.

E - the information is extremely scant we're being given no indication of the agenda. No indication if it involves 'fake' op's. No indication of who is funding the research/profiting from it.

F - it's a poor research tool imo I'm amazed their university is accepting this. It's lazy, poor practice!

G - "it'll all be deleted after the study" given that nothing held on a hard drive is EVER deleted, we're being given NO information regarding how the data will be stored or by whom I don't trust the data not to fall into the wrong hands!

That's weird.
I think you should at least let us know what the research is hoping to find or analyse. It's getting a bit intrusive.

It's in site stuff...the board it should be on so it's not been hidden away.

I don't know why MN are even suggesting opt out. Are researchers really going to go through and cross reference with a list then check all that posters NCs?

I couldn't care less personally.

It's about privacy and being outed.
Will the final findings be published? Albeit anonymity will be respected where's the confidentiality? Transparency about the purpose would be helpful if not reassuring.

Why would the researchers be given access to name changes, as some of you are assuming? AIUI (and obviously I'm coming at this from the outside), this research is not about identifying individuals (which some people seem to be assuming it is, which in turn is understandable in the current climate) or individual posting patterns. It's looking at use of language at a 'group' level (the group being 'MN posters' in this instance. And I'd expect any research published on the back of this to include a section on limitations of the study which will explain that the researchers have no way of knowing whether the posters are who they purport to be, whether they are actually parents, etc.). It'll be looking at the discourse on the terms of that discourse, i.e. discussion of a particular topic on MN.

i don't think MNHQ have communicated this well, and I'm not convinced of the need for some of the secrecy about the topic etc, but I don't think that's necessarily a premise for assuming the research itself is unsound or sinister.

As far as 'intrusive' goes, what I find intrusive (not personally, it's never happened to a thread of mine) are the emails MNHQ sends almost every day with the title of an often pretty personal AIBU thread as the subject line. Given it's real people's sometimes pretty upsetting situations being directly spread in that way - to make sure everyone sees them if they haven't already - I don't understand why people are getting exercised about this while perfectly happy for that sort of thing to go on. I can only assume the half-openness in the OP of this thread is leading people to suspect and assume all sorts of things that, AIUI, just aren't going to happen. Which leads us back to bad communication on the part of MNHQ, and (tbh) an increasing lack of trust between them and MNers, presumably fuelled by other issues.

People may start deleting their profiles and running for the hills. As in other social networks.

What's in it for MNHQ? Must be pretty lucrative... 🤔

Graphista, you are complaining about have seen it 12hrs after it was posted? That's pretty quick,I think.

As for the hitchhiker ref, being pinned to the active list is more akin to a letter in among the junk mail that no one reads. I'm not sure what else MNHQ coulddo!

I would like to opt out, please. That includes all my usernames.

Why have we not been told which university this is? It seems an unethical way of recruiting.

sansouci
Oh absolutely

Really can't understand the anxiety about this.

This is a public forum, and as a PP said, this is just like analysing letters to a newspaper.
They are looking at anonymized language when discussing specific topics. It isn't as if the research will say:

Steppemum said .....
or even take the whole of a post as it is. Mn have said it will not be identifiable.

Really can't understand the anx.
You do know that millions of people read your posts on mn don't you? And that some of they may not be the sort of person you would like to read your from the heart comments....

For the reasons given previously, I wish to opt out, with all my user names and registration details.

Couldn't care less, count me in (not that I write anything very noteworthy).

As a PP stated, all posts are publicly available anyway (as shown by the frequent lifting of threads to various newspapers).

I'd be interested in the results of the study once completed.

Everything we type on here (or anywhere else on tinterweb) is open for anyone to read. Fuck you daily mail - just saying.

It may be that because of gdpr that because mnhq are aware of this research that they have to let people know.

However my concern is that what might happen here is personal info will be given out in terms of whatever we have included in our sign up/profile. I say this because i would imagine that the "language" used by a poster in their 40s would differ to a poster in their early 20s. That education level would affect the language used. That area will affect language used etc. So for the researchers to be able to draw any kind of valid conclusions from the "data" collected they are going to nred access to more than what is written on the threads. Otherwise they could just log on like the rest of us and start goady threads about whatever subjects they want to investigate.

As i have also stated abovr. How many of us bother to read "site stuff" i usually dont. I actually thought this was one of those "heres a chance to take part in a survey and win a box of washing powder" type threads.

Also, will posters whose comments are being used be informed of the fact that their posts are being used?

PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE ME IN THIS as there has been nowhere near enough transparency for me to agree.