Thread by @cfiesler

Following four years of empirical work on research ethics for public data, our (@pervade_team) manifesto for trustworthy pervasive data research--foregrounding power dynamics and learning from ethnographers--published in @BigDataSoc. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20…

This paper in part details evidence that many data subjects are unaware of the research uses of their digital communications, and often express unhappiness and alarm. We map awareness to this 👇 spectra and recommend researchers reflect on where their data-gathering methods fall.

Importantly, using “public” data does not relieve researchers from considerations of participant awareness, because awareness of creation is not necessarily awareness of research use. And we should reflect on both awareness and the power implications of our research.

We also explicitly draw lessons from ethnographic research, where adherence to this kind of reflection has become bound up with definitions of ethical research, good methods, and good practice.

And we frame the discussion around trustworthiness, but importantly we see it as a means—a process—not just an end. Whether pervasive data research ultimately can gain participants’ trust is not entirely up to researchers. But what is up to us is trustworthy practice!

I can only take a small percentage of credit for this particular paper - @KatieShilton led the effort, and other amazing co-authors include @MannyMoss @_sgilbert_ @mbietz @undersequoias @jvitak & @michaelzimmer 🥰