Untitled

Bassett, Elizabeth H.; O’Riordan, Kate

doi:10.1023/a:1021319125207

Cited by 161 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comments from some groups indicated that they viewed the publically accessible chat rooms as private spaces and were unwilling to tolerate the use of the content for research purposes. Although this is in line with findings from boyd and Marwick [13] and Bassett and O’Riordan [16], it does have potential implications for the use of user-generated content and particularly forum content as data. Specifically, it contradicts the assumption that publically accessible spaces online are seen as public spaces by participants [5,6] and, therefore, do not require informed consent from users.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Bassett and O’Riordan [16] highlight an example in which lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender forum users’ constructions of privacy online, and their expected levels of confidentiality, safety, and freedom, were sharply divergent from both the actual levels of privacy and access and the description of the site and forum provided by the website owners. This indicates that despite signals to the contrary, individuals involved in online discussion groups may view the spaces that they occupy online as safe spaces, unlikely to be accessed or disseminated by outsiders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“I Always Vet Things”: Navigating Privacy and the Presentation of Self on Health Discussion Boards Among Individuals with Long-Term Conditions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe ethics of research into online communities is a long-debated issue, with many researchers arguing that open-access discussion groups are publically accessible data and do not require informed consent from participants for their use for research purposes. However, it has been suggested that there is a discrepancy between the perceived and actual privacy of user-generated online content by community members.ObjectiveThere has been very little research regarding how privacy is experienced and enacted online. The objective of this study is to address this gap by qualitatively exploring the expectations of privacy on Internet forums among individuals with long-term conditions.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 20 participants with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and 21 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were recruited via online and offline routes, namely forums, email lists, newsletters, and face-to-face support groups.ResultsThe findings indicate that privacy online is a nebulous concept. Rather than individuals drawing a clear-cut distinction between what they would and would not be comfortable sharing online, it was evident that these situations were contextually dependent and related to a number of unique and individual factors.ConclusionsInterviewees were seen to carefully manage how they presented themselves on forums, filtering and selecting the information that they shared about themselves in order to develop and maintain a particular online persona, while maintaining and preserving an acceptable level of privacy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Always Vet Things”: Navigating Privacy and the Presentation of Self on Health Discussion Boards Among Individuals with Long-Term Conditions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This methodology may give rise to ethical concerns, given that the products of human behavior are scrutinized. Nevertheless, according to the Codes of Ethics and Conduct of Internet Research [2], if an observation of public behavior takes place in public situations where subjects would expect to be observed by strangers (such as an open ‘Facebook’ discussion), explicit individual consent is not required. IRB approval from the authors’ affiliate institutes’ Ethics Committees were obtained nonetheless.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on Facebook

Orr

Baram‐Tsabari

Landsman

2016

Isr J Health Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSocial media can act as an important platform for debating, discussing, and disseminating information about vaccines. Our objectives were to map and describe the roles played by web-based mainstream media and social media as platforms for vaccination-related public debates and discussions during the Polio crisis in Israel in 2013: where and how did the public debate and discuss the issue, and how can these debates and discussions be characterized?MethodPolio-related coverage was collected from May 28 to October 31, 2013, from seven online Hebrew media platforms and the Facebook groups discussing the Polio vaccination were mapped and described. In addition, 2,289 items from the Facebook group “Parents talk about Polio vaccination” were analyzed for socio-demographic and thematic characteristics.ResultsThe traditional media mainly echoed formal voices from the Ministry of Health. The comments on the Facebook vaccination opposition groups could be divided into four groups: comments with individualistic perceptions, comments that expressed concerns about the safety of the OPV, comments that expressed distrust in the Ministry of Health, and comments denying Polio as a disease.In the Facebook group “Parents talk about the Polio vaccination”, an active group with various participants, 321 commentators submitted 2289 comments, with 64 % of the comments written by women. Most (92 %) people involved were parents. The comments were both personal (referring to specific situations) and general in nature (referring to symptoms or wide implications). A few (13 %) of the commentators were physicians (n = 44), who were responsible for 909 (40 %) of the items in the sample. Half the doctors and 6 % of the non-doctors wrote over 10 items each. This Facebook group formed a unique platform where unmediated debates and discussions between the public and medical experts took place.ConclusionThe comments on the social media, as well as the socio-demographic profiles of the commentators, suggest that social media is an active and versatile debate and discussion-facilitating platform in the context of vaccinations. This paper presents public voices, which should be seen as authentic (i.e. unmediated by the media or other political actors) and useful for policy making purposes. The policy implications include identifying social media as a main channel of communication during health crises, and acknowledging the voices heard on social media as authentic and useful for policy making. Human and financial resources need to be devolved specifically to social media. Health officials and experts need to be accessible on social media, and be equipped to readily provide the information, support and advice the public is looking for.

show abstract

“…This was considered as SPAM. The mainstream research methods failed to understand the importance of developing a virtual reality and online research (Herring, 1996;King, 1996;Boehlefeld, 1996;Schrum, 1997;Frankel & Siang, 1999;Eysenbach & Till, 2001;Bassett & O'Riordan, 2002;Bruckman, 2002a;Ess, 2002a;Walther, 2002).…”

Section: Online Research Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bloggers and Deliberative Democracy in Indonesia's Blogosphere

Jacky¹

2015

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of the relationship between the Internet and democracy has produced two main debates. Some studies have said that the Internet has significantly contributed to democracy while others disagree. This study challenged the thesis of Habermas (2006) about the relationship between the Internet and Deliberative Democracy. This study was built on the following propositions: that the Internet causes bloggers to become parasitic, fragmented, and isolated; that it is effective in breaking down authoritarian regimes to create an egalitarian relationship, but it fails as a deliberative medium. This study used the concept of the public sphere and Habermas ' Deliberative Democracy (2006). It also explored the use of 2.0 qualitative methods with a hacking analysis perspective. Moreover, it gained data from the Internet by using the latest version of 2.0 Web and a virtual community. It focused on both discursive and non-discursive construction. The results of this study support only one of Habermas' three propositions: that the Internet creates egalitarianism. Thus, this study rejects Habermas' thesis apart from this one proposition. Furthermore, this study recommends that further research be done using the same propositions but on Twitter instead of the Internet.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 161 publications

References 27 publications

“I Always Vet Things”: Navigating Privacy and the Presentation of Self on Health Discussion Boards Among Individuals with Long-Term Conditions

“I Always Vet Things”: Navigating Privacy and the Presentation of Self on Health Discussion Boards Among Individuals with Long-Term Conditions

Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on Facebook

Bloggers and Deliberative Democracy in Indonesia's Blogosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About