When conducting any kind of research that involves the public it is necessary to get it approved by a human research ethics committee(HREC). It is important to have an outside party approve that what you are conducting is ethically sound and will not offend, invade privacy or put anyone in danger. As ethics have always been a subjective topic depending on your personal opinion, what is ‘right’ can be different to someone else. To avoid debate about what may or may not be ethical to some, rules are adopted by organisations to inform their employees and the public about what their ethical standards are. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research is the broad guideline which all research projects must comply with in Australia.
Of course when we surround ourselves with negative people, situations or just a negative mindset, the outcome is going to be negative. But have you ever wondered if that person who always posts those miserable status updates on Facebook is actually making you miserable too?. Well turns out you would have been better off deleting Ned from Facebook who loves to tell you how he lost his job and his girlfriend.
In 2014, Facebook conducted a research study on Emotional Manipulation and to prove that emotional contagion exists on Facebook, meaning that if someone’s Facebook newsfeed is primarily negative posts then they will feel sad or negative without the actual physical interaction with people. They carried this out by manipulating peoples newsfeeds to either primarily negative or positive data and found that in fact emotional contagion is very present online. However, they did this without peoples consent and without a HREC approval which is arguably unethical and illegal. But why did they feel they did not need ethical approval?.
They claimed that they did not need a research committee’s approval as the results would not be shared with the public and was for internal use only. At the time, the study was consistent with Facebook’s policies, however the clauses regarding research were only added 4 months after the study was conducted. When considering peoples mental states of mind and how the manipulation might effect them, 6.7% of Americans suffer from clinical depression, so approximately 46,000 of facebooks user base may have been suffering from depression at the same time they were conducting the research. This means that any kind of unusual amount of negativity or something directly coming from the research could have been responsible for a persons safety or the impact it had upon them. It sounds like Facebook knew they had put peoples lives at risk and tried to cover themselves four months later when they had realised and it was much too late. For as large a company as Facebook to get away with such unethical research is an indicator that individuals wellbeing needs to be put well before a companies interest in research.
Instagram as we all know is completely reliant on interpretation. Unlike Facebook which allows users to express lengthy opinions in status updates, Instagram is image-driven which makes it much easier for users to trick/influence their followers into believing and only seeing a certain aspect of their life as they want them to see it. Although you have the ability to write a caption underneath your photo which is limited to 2200 words (entirely reasonable amount to explain a photo), you are not able to write more than 150 words in your ‘bio’ which is what is supposed to tell people about yourself, arguably setting people up to not properly express themselves before they even start posting. Instagram is however and has never claimed to be a forum used for drawn-out conversation or discussion like Facebook can be used for, which is arguably the beauty of Instagram. But, what are the consequences and harms of portraying yourself as someone who you may not be in real life?. Is the more we post on Instagram the more we search for validation through likes and not through our real lives?. As they say “Being famous on Instagram is like being rich in monopoly money” – it’s not real.
In a recent article in the New York times titled “Facebook made me do it”, this loop of positive reinforcement through likes on Instagram is analysed. The near immediate approval of what you are doing can become addictive and necessary, it may influence us to post more controversial photos just to see how much the barrier can be pushed and what people respond to. The article compares this kind of activity to such things as graffiti or protests, the world wide scale of who’s going to see what you are doing increases the risks you are willing to take, its described as being ‘performative’. I think this is extremely true and see it in my friends I follow on instagram, businesses, fashion labels, organisations, even I myself am guilty of such things. It is hard not to glamourise the photos you post on your online life, with the options of filters and saturations. What in reality is a photo of a cloudy and cold day can instantly become a hot and sun drenched day just with the application of a filter.
The article references the research of Coye Cheshire, a professor of information sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies how we interact online. He thinks that the act of anonymity online is similar to the feeling that is received when in a crowd, you act more impulsively than you might in person and so do things that you otherwise would not face to face. This is often seen in the example of ‘keyboard warriors’, often just bullies who find their voices much easier and louder online than they would in real life. This article is extremely successful in illustrating what the effects of having an online personality can be and the feelings of encouragement and approval which you may or may not like to admit are hard to ignore.
Recently the Australian Communications and Media Authority(ACMA) published a new study looking into how we all like to view our ‘Game Of Thrones’ and ‘Girls’ on online platforms. ACMA is arguably the most reliable source to get research information on media from as they are government run organisation researching to benefit Australians, and if we cant trust the government, who can we trust, right?…
The article is mainly targeting people who are interested in the findings, for example research students, media companies who can learn/use the data. It makes itself very easy to read and appealing to the average person in terms of reading the colour co-ordinated graphs and statistical information, the conclusions are obvious and there is no particular opinion voiced which is what is expected from a government funded research body. The article is not there to sell you anything but purely informative and from an objective stand point. The only possible opinion to be found is in the ‘future of online video content(OVC)’ section which states that the arrival of Netflix in March 2015 will compete directly with local broadcasters like FOXTEL, however even here it does not make a judgement whether one or the other will do better on the market.
In comparison to Nielsen’s article which focus’s more broadly on the overall online landscape and features a huge amount of statistical information with hardly any analysis or justification for the findings or where they came from. It shows graphs of the most used websites online, most used job and education seeking websites online, the role of gender and which one is more active online, which brands have the largest audiences whether it be YouTube, Facebook or VEVO it is clear this report was created to benefit businesses marketing strategies. Although there is no clear opinion in this report and also very clear and factual information which is important, there is still clear bias in catering for business models and not for researchers who want depth of information. It allows brands to see where their target market lies and how to get to them.
The two articles although focusing on similar topics are clearly targeted at two separate audiences. The methods used and depth of research is much higher in the ACMA report, the purpose of the report is much more ethically sound in informing the general public on how their online time is used, on what devices they view it, what encourages a heavier OVC use, the most popular reasons Australians use OVC and age and economic barriers. It is a highly successful research report which separates itself completely from opinion and bias.
Humans are constantly asking questions and the only way to find answers is through research. We unknowingly and knowingly do research every day. When buying a new product, we gather information from different sources in order to get the best deal, when we are engaging with other people we ask questions to research topics we are interested in. However this is very different from scholarly research which is based on factual information concerned with being correct and coming to conclusions from both quantitative and qualitative research. Media research is based on anything to do with the media, what the media produces, its problems, its successes. When I started my final year of high school, the incoming year 7’s were the first year to receive iPads to assist them in their school work. We were all very jealous and complained as to why we weren’t the chosen year to receive these tablets awaiting the downloading of flappy bird, fruit ninja and angry birds. On the bus ride home however I started to notice that these iPads were having an unseen effect on these young children which was seriously disgruntling. None of them spoke to each other. With eyes glued to the screens of their iPad, this familiar bus ride was suddenly so very different to my experience of yelling, gossiping, singing and genuinely enjoying each others company. Although technology and more specifically social media has done some seriously amazing things to the world and continues to everyday, I would like to research whether or not the benefits of social media are worth the distractions younger generations feel when undertaking school work, uni work, working on relationships and entering the work force. Do younger generations know how to work as hard as older generations who did not grow up with such easily accessible information and distractions like Facebook, Instagram and Tumblr at the click of a button?.