The document presents research on how personal reputations are constructed and evaluated online, emphasizing individuals' management of their identities and reputations through digital information. It discusses the existing literature across various fields related to information sharing, reputation assessment, and the challenges posed by online anonymity. Research gaps and future questions aim to explore the processes individuals use for evaluating and managing online reputations, intending to conduct a pilot study for further insights.

1. Assessing the available and 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 all about?
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 literature found?
(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 by the 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: “Real world”
 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 in the 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 the literature tell us?
Employers conduct
social media reviews
pre- and post-
employment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. What does the literature tell us?
Friends and friends-of-
friends can impact reputation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. What does the literature tell us?
“Real names” and
anonymity are key
debates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12. 1 2 3 4 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 3 4 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
 Pilot study 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 2 3 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 available at: www.slideshare.net/justfrances