Assessing the available and accessible evidence: How personal reputations are determined and managed online

Assessing the available and accessible evidence: How personal reputations are determined and managed online

• 1.
  Assessing the availableand accessible evidence: How personal reputations are determined and managed online by Frances VC Ryan Presentation delivered at the Information: Interactions and Impact (i³) Conference 24th June 2015, Aberdeen, Scotland Co-authors: Professor Hazel Hall, Alistair Lawson, and Peter Cruickshank f.ryan@napier.ac.uk | @cleverfrances | www.JustAPhD.com 1
• 2.
  Let’s chat about…  Overview  Domains of study  Key terms  Key themes  Evidence  The gaps  Research questions  Next steps 1 2
• 3.
  What’s it allabout? How online information contributes to the building and assessment of personal reputations  How people manage their own personal reputations through their use of online information  The means by which people evaluate the personal reputations of others from the online evidence available to them – Personal reputation: Private individuals, rather than corporate identity and brand 1 2 3
• 4.
  Where’s the literaturefound? (Almost) Everywhere!  Information science  Computing  Employment research  Human-computer interaction  Human resources management  Information systems  Management and organisational studies  Marketing  Media and communication studies  Physical and mental health 1 2 3 4
• 5.
   Created bythe individual that the identity represents – and others  Different presentations of self for different audiences  “Representations of self/selves” that individuals create for or about themselves Key terms: Identity 1 2 3 4 5
• 6.
  Key terms: Reputation Everyone has (at least) one!  Determined by others based on the information available to them  The personal opinions and character judgements one individual has for another 1 2 3 4 5 6
• 7.
  Key terms: “Realworld”  Blurred lines  Intentional transfer of offline activities to online environments  Trading information for online conveniences  If you’re not online, are you real? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
• 8.
  Key themes inthe literature  Information sharing  Information quality and accuracy  Employment and career opportunities  Friends and friends-of-friends  “Real names”, pseudonyms, and anonymity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
• 9.
  What does theliterature tell us? Employers conduct social media reviews pre- and post- employment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
• 10.
  What does theliterature tell us? Friends and friends-of- friends can impact reputation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• 11.
  What does theliterature tell us? “Real names” and anonymity are key debates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
• 12.
  1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 At least some self-regulation and censorship by individuals What does the literature tell us?
• 13.
  Mind the gap!(1)  To what extent are individuals evaluating the reputations of others based on the information found about them online?  What processes do individuals follow to identify and collect online information about others?  How is online information about individuals rated, assessed, or validated for the purposes of reputation evaluation?  To what extent does the quality of information collected impact the determination of individuals’ reputations? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
• 14.
  Mind the gap!(2)  How do individuals manage online information regarding their combined professional and private reputations?  How do individuals manage their online and offline reputations as one “real world” reputation?  To what extent do individuals feel more or less free or restricted because of the blurred lines between their online and offline worlds?  To what extent do individuals actively monitor their online footprints for the purpose of reputation management? If so, how and to what extent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
• 15.
  1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  How do people relate to, seek, and use information? (Bates, 1999, p. 6)  How do we handle ideas and knowledge, both our own and other people’s? (Howkins, 2009, p. 1) Alignment with some “big questions”
• 16.
  The research questions How do individuals build identities for themselves online?  How do individuals use online information to build and manage their reputations?  How do individuals asses the identities and reputations of others based on the information available to them online?  To what extent are individuals actively practicing identity and reputation building and assessment online? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
• 17.
  Next steps  Pilotstudy being designed  Scope and test possible approaches for main study  Largely qualitative work  Preliminary results expected by end of summer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
• 18.
  Let’s chat about…  Sample for main study  Potential secondary methods of investigation  Other thoughts on the literature or doctoral investigation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
• 19.
  Indicative bibliography 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ausloos, J. (2012). The “Right to be forgotten”: Worth remembering? Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2012.01.006 Bates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043–1050. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1043::AID-ASI1>3.3.CO;2-O Cronin, B. & Askins, H.B. (2000). The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today Duguay, S. (2014). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 1–17. doi:10.1177/1461444814549930 Fieseler, C., Meckel, M., & Ranzini, G. (2014). Professional personae: How organizational identification shapes online identity in the workplace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1–18. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12103 Finocchiaro, G. & Ricci, A. (2013). Quality of information, the right to oblivion, and digital reputation. In B. Custers, T. Calders, B. Schermer, & T. Zarsky (Eds.), Discrimination and Privacy in the Information Society (Vol. 3, pp. 289–299). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3 Greidanus, E. & Everall, R. D. (2010). Helper therapy in an online suicide prevention community. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38(2), 191–204. doi:10.1080/03069881003600991 Howkins, J. (2009). Creative ecologies: Where thinking is a proper job. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press. Kluemper, D. H. & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 567–580. doi:10.1108/02683940910974134 Lingel, J. & boyd, d. (2013). “Keep it secret, keep it safe”: Information poverty, information norms, and stigma. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 981–991. doi:10.1002/asi.22800 Madera, J. M. (2012). Using social networking websites as a selection tool: The role of selection process fairness and job pursuit intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1276–1282. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.008 Mesch, G. S. & Beker, G. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online? Human Communication Research, 36(4), 570–592. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2010.01389.x
• 20.
  Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard,N. P., & Berg, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 645–669. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0235 Savolainen, R. (2008). Everyday information practices: a social phenomenological perspective. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Uski, S. & Lampinen, A. (2014). Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action. New Media & Society, 1–18. doi:10.1177/1461444814543164 Vaast, E. (2007). Playing with masks: Fragmentation and continuity in the presentation of self in an occupational online forum. Information Technology & People, 20(4), 334–351. doi:10.1108/09593840710839789 Van Dijck, J. (2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215. doi:10.1177/0163443712468605 Copyright attributions Slides 2 & 18: Creative commons copyright Andy Wright (www.flickr.com/rightee) Slide 4: Creative commons copyright GotCredit (www.flickr.com/jakerust) Slide 5: Creative commons copyright (1) José Luís Agapito (www.flickr.com/blvesboy); (2) Red Rose Exile (www.flickr.com/redroseexile); (3) Stefano Mortellaro (www.flickr.com/fazen) Slide 6: Creative commons copyright (1) Martin Tews (www.flickr.com/airpark); (2) Sarah Reid (www.flickr.com/sarahreido) Slide 10: Creative commons copyright Horatio3K (www.flickr.com/horatio3k) All other images copyright Frances VC Ryan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Indicative bibliography (cont.)
• 21.
  Thank you! f.ryan@napier.ac.uk @cleverfrances www.JustAPhD.com Slides availableat: www.slideshare.net/justfrances