Government Social Research:

Social Media Guidance

Hugh KingFSA Social Science Research Unit

BACKGROUND - GOVERNMENT SOCIAL RESEARCH

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

Government Social Research Service (GSR)

• Analytical profession

• Present in all major departments, broad range of

interests and expertise, especially:• Quantitative and qualitative research and analysis• Legal and ethical planning

• Specialist but far from holistic skills

• Nascent but growing interest in SMR

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

GSR social media working groupEst. 2014

Guidance Task and finish groupDeveloping guidance Mar – Sep 2015

Publication Main guidance: October

Ethics guidance: November

Peer review of guidanceSMARIG and GSR Department Heads Jun – Oct 2015

PROJECT GUIDANCE: USING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SOCIAL

RESEARCH

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

Using Social Media for Social Research: An

Introduction1. Introduction

2. What is Social Media?• Definition

• History and Evolution

• Social Media Research

• Big Data

3. Social Media in Government Currently

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

 

Characteristic Pros/Opportunities Cons/Areas of CautionThe users of social media are highly unlikely to reflect population demographics (As shown in Figure 4 for Twitter).

Useful if research focuses on a group whose demographics are highly dominant on a certain social media platform.

Not representative of populations (Ruths & Jurgen, 2014), therefore biases are likely to exist and will be difficult to adjust.

Potential coverage of social media data extends to those who do not complete surveys.

Increased penetration into population.Potential comparison of views from two different datasets.

Difference in demographics between datasets may be difficult to adjust for in order to combine sets.

Conditions under which users are generating information are different to surveys.

Revealed preference from unprompted posts may indicate actual behaviour as opposed to claimed behaviour when prompted in surveys.

Potential for overrepresentation of users likely to share their opinions on social media.

Primary purpose of generated content is not for research.

See above.No research burden on users.

See Section 5 for ethical considerations.If users were asked on whether or not they would like to participate in research, reminders may be required periodically.Data may not be in best format for analysis.

Access to data is governed by the companies that own the data and their privacy agreements with users.

  Opacity as to how datasets have been created. Onus turns to researcher to confirm how data has been compiled.

Platforms change functionality, settings and popularity regularly, which affect the way data is collected and analysed.

There are frequently positive developments in the opportunities available with datasets e.g. new variables

Ensuring consistency in research across longer timeframes is required.

Easily/widely available, with little in depth skill required to obtain.

Potential for less resource to be required in order to solve the problem than with other methods.

 

5.2 Data collection and sampling

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

5.3 Analysis

Quantitative Approaches Volume Analysis 

Relationship AnalysisCorrelations 

Regression/Classification 

Clustering 

GIS

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

Qualitative ApproachesActive/Passive Ethnography

Segmentation/Group Identification 

Thematic Analysis 

Semantic Analysis 

Sentiment Analysis

Graphical Media

5.3 Analysis

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

Visual and Audio content Photo tags Media tone and content

Tone and Sentiment Emotions and feelings Tone and opinion

Influence and Clout

Topics of discussion/search

Biographical data Age, Name, Gender Nationality, Residence Occupation or qualifications Lifestyle activities or interests

Location Latitude / Longitude Settlement/Address

Textual Semantics

Keyword content from posts comments on primary posts Hashtags

Influencing

Patterns of reaction

Units of volume and frequency Number of followers/friends Number of users Rates of use and interaction Searches

Number of reactions

Views Comments Likes/endorsements Retweets/Quotes

Volumes per unit time Scores/Other Ordinal Rankings Deletions

Regression Modelling GIS Correlation and ANOVA Descriptive statistical tests

Semantic Analysis and Thematic Codification

Ethnographic Observation Active research

Network analysis Semantic Analysis GIS Pseudo-experiments

5.3 Analysis

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

• Different observer effects

• Offline and online behaviour

• Platform-based manipulation 

• Non-user manipulation

• (Limited) contextual data

5.4 Reliability considerations

• Purpose of the research• Traditional vs methods-based interest• Appropriate analytical tools • Verification of findings• Presentation limitations/considerations

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

7 Emerging issues

Futureconsiderations

Changing use patterns

New ethical questions

Data connectedness Passive integration

Big questions

Peer reviewPost-deletion

Growing observer effects

Resource commitment

Changing access

COMMENTS?

ETHICS GUIDANCE: EXPLORING SOCIAL RESEARCH ISSUES

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

1. Sound application and conduct of social

research methods, and interpretation of

the findings

2. Participation based on informed consent

3. Enabling participation

4. Avoidance of personal and social harm

5. Non-disclosure of identity

5 core ethical principles in GSR:

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

1. Sound application and conduct of social

research methods, and interpretation of findings

• Are social media techniques appropriate? Why are they being used?

• What evidence is the use of social media based on? (social media = new techniques/types of data)

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

2. Participation based on informed consent• Contacting participants via social media – how

secure/professional?

• Is informed consent practical when using large scale datasets?

• What are the associated privacy settings / terms and conditions of each site?

3. Enabling participation• Who uses social media / who will be excluded?

• Who uses specific platforms?

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

4. Avoidance of personal and social harm• Generally little burden on participants (use of existing

data)

• Distress from feelings of intrusion / disclosure of

identity / misuse of info.

5. Non-disclosure of identity• Securely stored data, anonymised as soon as possible

• Trade off b/w what was said & by whom (professional

scrutiny)

© 2015 Food Standards Agency

Ethical dilemma example…

Your research project involves two strands of analysis; one involves analysing the content

of Twitter posts and the second, looking at volumes of key words in these posts.

Part way through, you discover that some of the Tweets have been deleted, including some

which you were going to quote. Do you revise your report and volumes based on the

removal of this content?

• Does deletion count as removal of consent?

• Is there a difference between the quotes and the volume analysis?

• Would removal skew the sample?

COMMENTS?