Tag Archives: lurkers

Researcher Visibility⤴

from

Lurker
Lurker” flickr photo by NomadWarMachine shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA) license

In my last post I shared a quote from Joanne McNeil introducing the idea of researcher as lurker. Since then I have been thinking at some reasons for researchers to show or hide themselves from their participants, and the related issues of visibility of data and ethical considerations. Here is my starter for ten about levels of researcher visibility and possible research reasons.

Researcher VisibilityResearch Reason
Status as researcher disclosed to participants from the outsetParticipatory research
Ethnography
Status as researcher initially hidden (not disclosed to participants), disclosed at/after data analysis stageConcerns about researcher influencing behaviour (e.g. Hawthorne effect).
Later disclosed so participants can authenticate interpretation
Status as researcher never disclosed to participants during data collection or analysis stageParticipant point of view not relevant
Researcher as ‘god-like’/expert
Data is being collected after the event
Participants are anonymous
Data VisibilityHow?
Public throughoutOpen research/open data
Public at publication of projectShared to institutional database
Shared with participantsVarious ways
Shared on requestVarious ways
Never shared 

My next stage is to think through types of ethical (approval) to match these.

[I think more and more, by the way, that the insistence on the need for ethical approval by institutional gatekeepers is problematic (and not at all ethical). I say something about this in my PhD thesis (see ~ p 82).]

Researchers as lurkers⤴

from

Researcher as lurker
J McNeil p129

An interesting paragraph in a book I am reading at the moment (Lurking, by Joanne McNeil). We are used to talking about learners as lurkers, but here’s another perspective. What images do we invoke when we think about the researcher as lurker?

The picture of researcher as outsider – as a profiteer swooping in to steal content and to cherry pick meaning to fit their own agenda – was one that gave me pause during my own PhD (I am sure some of you remember the story of the ‘researchers’ who came across a Google Doc that some of us were using to start writing a journal article and used it in a conference presentation without asking or attributing – the affront we felt at that unethical behaviour has stayed with me). I chose participatory research as my methodology, and ultimately ended up writing an autoethnography because I wanted to try to allow my community to have a voice in what I was doing, and to make it clear that what I was saying was my own interpretation.

Of course Twitter is public, and the ToS make it clear that researchers are permitted to use tweets without attribution, but imo that is not the full story – there are also ethical considerations (I say some things about this in my PhD thesis if anyone is interested).

I’m not sure where I am going with this yet – as always I am writing to find out what I am thinking.

Twitter chat personas⤴

from

Say cheese

I’ve been thinking a lot about the different ways of interacting, or not, on Twitter this week, and I’ve come up with a rough list of types of engagement in Twitter conversations:

  • Academic:  adds relevant academic references
  • Networker: links to others/brings other tweeps into the conversation
  • Self-publicist: always twists the conversation to talk about their work; provides links to their work over and over again
  • Cheerleader: RTs with added positive comments about the original post
  • Enthusiast: replies to say how great everybody and their ideas are
  • Lurker: likes posts, might RT without added comment, but does not post
  • Critic: disagrees, adds alternative points of view, but does so in a positive way*
  • Troll: no need to define these*

What do you think? Do you recognise yourself or others in this categorisation? Ha:ve I missed out any personas you’d include?

* Thanks to Len for these two