Presented by Frances VC RyanEdinburgh Napier University

Centre for Social Informatics

“Personal online reputations:

Managing what you can’t control”

DARTS5 Conference:

Discover Academic Research, Training, and Support

2nd June 2016, Dartington Hall, Totnes, England

f.ryan@napier.ac.uk | @cleverfrances | www.JustAPhD.com

Overview of presentation

Research themes and questions

Literature review

Theoretical framework

Methods of investigation

Early findings

Next steps

Discussion

What’s the research about?

How online information contributes to the building, maintenance,

and evaluation of personal reputations― Personal reputation: Private individuals, rather than corporate identity and brand

Two broad research themes:

(1) The means by which people evaluate or assess the personal

reputations of others from the online evidence available to them

(2) How people manage their own personal reputations through their use

of online information, and to what extent those behaviours are intentional

OK, but what does that mean?

© Frances Ryan

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 evaluate the identities and reputations of others

based on the online information available to them?

To what extent do individuals actively practise identity and reputation

building and evaluation online?

Where’s the literature found?

(Almost) Everywhere!

Information science

Everyday life information seeking (ELIS)

Citation analysis

Computing

Employment research

Human-computer interaction

Human resources management

Information systems

Management and organisational studies

Marketing

Media and communication studies

Physical and mental health

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

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

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?

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

What does the literature tell us?

Employers conduct

social media reviews

pre- and post-

employment

What does the literature tell us?

Friends and friends-of-

friends can impact reputation

What does the literature tell us?

“Real names” and

anonymity are key

debates

At least some self-regulation and

censorship by individuals

What does the literature tell us?

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?

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?

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”

Developing a theoretical framework

for empirical work

Difficult: What literature should be considered?

1. General materials related to research themes across many domains

(e.g. Human resources, marketing, information systems, physical

and mental health)

2. Specific material on academic reputations evident in citation analysis

3. Contextual material from everyday life information seeking (ELIS)

studies

Developing a theoretical framework

for empirical work

Difficult: Which literature should be considered?

1. General materials related to research themes across many domains

(e.g. Human resources, marketing, information systems, physical

and mental health)

2. Specific material on academic reputations evident in citation analysis

3. Contextual material from everyday life information seeking (ELIS)

studies

Lots of options:

- Quantitative

- Qualitative

Developing a theoretical framework

for empirical work

Difficult: Which literature should be considered?

1. General materials related to research themes across many domains

(e.g. Human resources, marketing, information systems, physical

and mental health)

2. Specific material on academic reputations evident in citation analysis

3. Contextual material from everyday life information seeking (ELIS)

studies

Mostly Quantitative

Developing a theoretical framework

for empirical work

Difficult: Which literature should be considered?

1. General materials related to research themes across many domains

(e.g. Human resources, marketing, information systems, physical

and mental health)

2. Specific material on academic reputations evident in citation analysis

3. Contextual material from everyday life information seeking (ELIS)

studies

Largely Qualitative

How best to investigate both research themes?

The challenge? Establishing a way to examine both research themes

simultaneously

Qualitative methods deemed most appropriate

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews to discuss participants’ own

practices

Answering questions on evaluation of others proved more difficult

Four potential solutions …

Option 1: Profile mock-ups

Create false user profiles

Information mimics situations

from literature

Participants review mock-ups

Interviews to discuss how

reputations are evaluated

Option 2: Participant screen shots

Screen shots of participants’

online profiles

Others evaluate the reputations

of each other based on the

screen shots

Interviews to discuss how

reputations are evaluated

© Frances Ryan

Option 3: Observation

Participants discuss evaluation

of others during interview

Participants interacting with

social media accounts with

interviewer present

Ethical issues regarding consent

from participants’ connections

Option 4: Diaries and interviews

Participants keep diary for one

week

Simple instructions regarding

what to write about

No formatting guidelines

After diary, participants take part

in a semi-structured interview

Best option: Diaries and interviews

Tradition in everyday life information seeking (ELIS) research

Rich data are reliable sources of information and eliminate the

potential for inaccurate reporting

(Narayan, Case, & Edwards, 2011, p. 3)

Several studies use a combination of diary-keeping and interviews

(Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005; Dervin, 1983; McKenzie, 2003; Rieh, 2004)

Although studies vary, they share a common theme: combining the

robustness of two forms of data

How did the diary work?

Participants kept diary for one

week

Simple instructions; no

formatting guidelines

Got participants thinking about

their information behaviours

Diaries helped form interview

guides

Collecting the data

Sample of 45 UK-based participants

Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby boomers

Short background survey

Diary for one week (electronic or hand-written)

One-hour semi-structured interviews (face-to-face or Skype)

Social media an extension of

everyday lives

Varying levels self-censorship

behaviours

Deleting posts

Intentional practices based on

platform use

Managing “the blur”

Generation X: Early findings

Difficult to convey evaluations of others

Negative views when opinions are

in stark contrast to their own

Conflicting views on anonymous

accounts and pseudonyms used by

others

More forgiving or lenient when known

in an offline environment

Generation X: Early findings

Progress and next steps

Pilot study completed

Main empirical work in progress

Data analysis

Thesis write-up

Doctor Ryan

Main empirical work

Sample of 45+ participants

Gen Y, Gen X, and Boomers

Data analysis

Thesis write-up

Indicative bibliography

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

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

Indicative bibliography (cont.)

Slide 8: 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 9 and 32: Creative commons copyright (1) Martin Tews (www.flickr.com/airpark); (2) Sarah Reid

(www.flickr.com/sarahreido)

Slide 15 and 31: Creative commons copyright Horatio3K (www.flickr.com/horatio3k)

Slide 24: Creative commons copyright (1) WireframeSketcher (wireframesketcher.com/mockups) (2) PitchStock

(www.behance.net)

Slide 26: Creative commons copyright Jason Jenkins (www.flickr.com/jdub1980)

All other images copyright Frances VC Ryan

Thank you!

f.ryan@napier.ac.uk@cleverfrances

www.JustAPhD.com

Slides available at: www.slideshare.net/justfrances