Personal online reputations: Managing what you can't control

1. Presented by Frances VC Ryan
Edinburgh 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

2. Overview of presentation
 Research themes and questions
 Literature review
 Theoretical framework
 Methods of investigation
 Early findings
 Next steps
 Discussion

3. 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

4. OK, but what does that mean?
© Frances Ryan

6. 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?

7. 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

8.  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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. What does the literature tell us?
Employers conduct
social media reviews
pre- and post-
employment

13. What does the literature tell us?
Friends and friends-of-
friends can impact reputation

14. What does the literature tell us?
“Real names” and
anonymity are key
debates

15. At least some self-regulation and
censorship by individuals
What does the literature tell us?

16. 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?

17. 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?

18.  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”

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 …

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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)

31.  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

32.  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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. Thank you!
f.ryan@napier.ac.uk
@cleverfrances
www.JustAPhD.com
Slides available at: www.slideshare.net/justfrances