This document discusses methodological approaches used in location-based social networking (LBSN) research. It describes pilot observational studies of LBSN conducted in 2005 that tracked a participant's daily movements using a GPS device. It also outlines focus groups and observational studies conducted between 2010-2012 to explore people's attitudes towards LBSN applications and how "friend" pairs used them over time. The studies found issues around privacy, control, trust and social implications influenced people's willingness to adopt LBSNs.

1. Methodological Approaches to
Location-Based Social
Networking (LBSN) Research
Dr. Roba Abbas, Prof Katina Michael, Sarah J Fusco*
Faculty of Engineering & Information Sciences
University of Wollongong
roba@uow.edu.au | katina@uow.edu.au

2. LBSN Introduction
• Online social networking (OSN) + location-based services (LBS)
• Statistics, current situation and trends
• Examples
• Foursquare Swarm
• Glympse
• Snap Map (Snapchat)
• Latitude (discontinued, now Maps)

4. Pilot Phases of LBS Observation in 2005
• Each day during the four week period
of the study the observer carried a
Magellan Meridian Gold handheld
device either in a carry bag or pant
pocket.
• The GPS device was setup to collect
location data every three seconds.
• At the end of each day this data was
uploaded into GIS software
“DiscoverAus Streets & Tracks” which
was used to save and analyse data.
• Throughout the entire study the
observer stayed in the area of
Wollongong, Australia which is about
90 kilometres from Sydney.

5. Observational Set-up
• Daily activities – at the start of each day the GPS device is turned on as soon as the participant
leaves their place of residence. At the end of each day the device is switched off.
• Carrying the GPS device – the device is carried in the participant’s bag or pocket while walking.
When driving, the device is placed securely in a dock.
• Tracking node limitation – the device is only capable of collecting 2000 tracking nodes at a time.
While this is more than enough for a single day of tracking it is not enough for more than one day.
Care must be taken to ensure that track data is erased at the end of each day so there will be
enough memory the following day.
• Getting a signal – it takes about one minute to get a signal, so when the device is first turned on
the user will have to wait until a signal is detected.
• Indoors – the device looses its signal when indoors so when the signal is lost at a certain location
it will be assumed that the user is indoors.
• Battery life – the manual indicates that the device can get up to 14 hours of usage on two AA
batteries. Rechargeable batteries do not have enough power to keep the GPS device running
throughout an entire day. Non-rechargeable batteries will be replaced when they are running low.

6. Comparing Two Weeks of Track Data
• Issues:
• Accuracy
• Ability to falsely edit track data
• Revealing user travel behavior
• GIS detail leading to location
intelligence
• User awareness

7. Day 1. home > uni > home > uni >*signal dropout*
Day 2. home > uni > home (speed miscalculation)
Day 3. home > uni > home > work > home
Day 4. home > rta >*signal dropout*> home > *signal dropout* > uni > masterbuilders > unibar > home
Day 5. home > uni (speed miscalculation) > *signal dropout* > home
Day 6. home > petrol station > *signal dropout* > work
Day 7. work > home > work > home
Day 8. home > work > home
Day 9. home > uni (speed miscalculation) > woolworths > *signal dropout* > home (speed miscalculation) > work(gym) > home
Day 10. home > uni > home > work(gym) > home
Day 11. home > work
Day 12. home > work (gym) > home > work
Day 13. work > home > work (bbc) > home (speed miscalculation)
Day 14. home
Summary of Geolocation Trail Data - Diary

15. Qualitative Research Approach
• Rich datasets
• Subjectivities and contextual information
• Concerned with perspectives and interpretation of particular situation
• Typically results in discovery of themes and relationships

16. Focus Groups: Exploratory Approach
• Objective
• To explore the use, application and issues involved in using LBSN applications
between “friends” as well as the concept of trust, and how it may be affected
• Friends taxonomy
• Co-worker, acquaintance, close friend, family member or intimate relation
• Design
• 5 focus groups, with approx. 20 participants in each
• 18 to 25 years old

17. Questions and Stimulus Material
• STIMULUS:
Definition of LBSN & video clip demonstrating
the use of LBSN application Google Latitude
•QUESTIONS:
Discussion questions surrounding the use &
implications of LBSN
Section1
LBSN
• STIMULUS:
Definition & description of the construct “trust”
•QUESTIONS:
General discussion surrounding the level
of trust within different contexts
Section2
Trust
• STIMULUS:
Presentation of scenarios which demonstrated
the use of LBSN in different contexts
•QUESTIONS:
Discussion of participants’ response to the
scenarios generally, & in relation to trust
Section3
LBSN&
Trust
DATA COLLECTION
DATA ANALYSIS
• Qualitative
• Thematic
• Manual Coding

18. Propensity to Adopt LBSN
• Adopted
• Two participants
• Application running in background was “weird”, Battery consumption, requires
friends otherwise “not a lot of point”
• Would adopt in near future
• Mixed response: indifference vs. adoption under specified conditions
• Issues: accuracy, control the visibility of location, use in certain situations only
• Would never adopt
• Majority of participants
• Unnecessary, ethical concerns, removes human contact, did not wish to disclose
location details

19. Why Participants Would/Not Use LBSN
Why? Why Not?
• Monitoring or Tracking:
• Children
• Employees
• Friends
• Travelling
• Journaling
• Parent peace of mind
• For fun
• Intrusion into persons life
• Children deserve freedom
• Freedom to stray from plans
• Impact on Trust
• Drains batteries
• Privacy
• No one uses it

20. Viewing and Disclosing Location Information
People who can view People to view
• No one
• Family/ close friends/ trusted
people
• Friends
• Anyone
• Everyone
• Everyone
• Friends
• Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
• Parents (depending on the
circumstances)

21. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“start questioning everything and everyone and
get bitter and old and grey and home alone”
“Random social problems when someone looks
up their boyfriend and there is some other
person at their house …”
“People looking too deep – who’s where who’s
near by inferring little schemes”

22. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“I can watch you on Google latitude – if
you update it every three or four hours
and know where you are – build a profile –
creatures of habit”
“If I lose it, and a person finds it and if
anyone gets that they can easily see the
location of my friends ”

23. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“Random things like being at the doctors surgery and
having the phone in your pocket and you don’t want
everyone prying into your life ”
“If you were doing anything – not necessarily a crime-
but something you wanted to keep secret.”
“There is this thing where you want your own person,
your own space, you don’t want to be like trapped”

24. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“Because you act differently because you think
“oh s### my parents are always going to be
watching what I am doing and where I am” and
that’s not good, I don’t’ like that”
“Control by a crazy lover”
“So its not about the children it is about them
having access to the children. About control”

25. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“Takes away the social part of social networking we
are not communicating with each other we are
basically… we are just viewing it and it is more of a
pervasive thing or voyeuristic thing then a social
thing”
“People might use it to avoid certain people as well”

26. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“Will it work indoors?”
“Battery consumption”
“Accuracy”

27. Issues Surrounding the Use of LBSN
• Trust
• Security
• Privacy
• Control
• Social Utility
• Technological
• None
“The Google latitude is like, if you don’t like the
system you can deactivate it, only for a purpose. So
for me it is useful”
“No issues, if your friends location is secured to you
so long as you have the phone”
“Technology is not the issue, it is humans
imperfection”

28. Observation/Experiments: Usability Studies
• Two types of observation
1. LBSN observational study between “friend” pairs, followed by interview
2. LBS usability study that formed part of a larger socio-technical
design/consultation process

29. LBSN Observation and Interviews
• Objective
• To validate results of focus groups
• To observe real world use of LBSN between five different friend pairs
1. Parent – Child
2. Sibling – Sibling
3. Friend – Friend
4. Intimate relation/friend – intimate relation/friend
5. Co-worker – co-worker
• Design
• Each friend received mobile device running LBSN app Google Latitude, and were asked to use
app for 48 hours
• Pre- and post- interviews were conducted
• Questions based on outcome of focus groups

30. LBSN Observational Study Participants
Person A Person B Duration
Friends
European
25-30
Male
High TL
High OSN
European
25-30
Female
Medium TL
Low OSN
48 hours
Siblings
European
19-24
Female
Medium TL
High OSN
European
25-30
Female
Medium TL
Low OSN
24 hours
Parent And Child
European
31+
Female
Low TL
Low OSN
European
19-24
Female
High TL
Low OSN
48 hours
Co-Workers
Middle Eastern
25-30
Female
High TL
Medium OSN
European
31+
Female
High TL
Medium OSN
48 hours
Intimate Relationship
(IR)
European
19-24
Female
High TL
Low OSN
Australian
19-24
Male
Medium TL
Medium OSN
48 hours
Key
Background
Age Group
Gender
Level of Technology Literacy (TL)
Level of use of OSN

31. Observational Study Results
• Friends
• Siblings
• Parent-Child
• Co-workers
• Intimate
relationship
“I guess if you want to have your own personal time, if
you might be having coffee somewhere privately or if
you are going for a run or a walk alone and don’t want
to be disturbed, then they are circumstances I would
have hid it in. And then again my place of residence,
because he said that he could see where I lived and
that is exposing not only myself but the people that I
live with and I had an issue with and also because the
house I live in during the week is not my home but is
the home of another person. And I didn’t feel
comfortable with the fact that just because I was
willing to be tracked that I was allowing everyone else
or exposing everyone else to that same exposure.”

32. Observational Study Results
• Friends
• Siblings
• Parent-Child
• Co-workers
• Intimate
relationship
“I thought it was good. At the beginning I didn’t think
much of it but then during the day as you check it is
kinda cool because you can check out where they are
and you do tend to follow it and if it is not according
to where they should be, not that I doubt her, but
you would question where is she? Or where is she
going?”
“Well if I was doing something which I didn’t want my
sister to know about, or if was going somewhere for
example buying her a surprise birthday gift and I
didn’t want her to know I was going to a certain
location and doing that.”

33. Observational Study Results
• Friends
• Siblings
• Parent-Child
• Co-workers
• Intimate
relationship
“I felt as though I had to account for all my
locations”
“I know where my mum is most of the time, if she
is not at work, she is at home, shopping or taking
my siblings somewhere. I wasn’t too curious
about where she was but more so about where
she thought I was”

34. Observational Study Results
• Friends
• Siblings
• Parent-Child
• Co-workers
• Intimate
relationship
“There was, however, some confusion with my location
this morning. Latitude pinpointed my location to [City
A], when in actual fact I was working at [City B]. [My
Employer] and I found this funny, as it appeared as
though I wasn’t yet at work. It made me think of the
implications this could have from a work perspective,
outside of this trial. What would an employer think
viewing such details? Assuming the employer’s
perspective is a little disconcerting...”

35. Observational Study Results
• Friends
• Siblings
• Parent-Child
• Co-workers
• Intimate
relationship
“It enabled me to connect to him in a different sense in both being able to
see where he was and being able to reveal to him where I was. At one
point I was at the beach on a swing and the positioning was so accurate
that with the satellite view turned on you could see me sitting right on the
swing. I told him to have a look at my location at that time and asked him
what I was sitting on. So I thought it could also be used in a playful way.”
“I was just curious to see where he was and since I was at work I just
propped my phone next to me set on google latitude and would glance
across at it every now and then.”
“I felt fine. I was however curious to know when he was viewing, and how
often he was viewing my location. It also made me feel I guess self
conscious of my location because he could be looking at it any time.”

36. Qualitative Validation

37. Socio-
technical
design
processes
Social
Informatics
principles
Australian
Policy Cycle
Socio-technical
methodological
approach
Australia
(SOCIETAL)
Public policy setting
(POLITICAL)
Regulatory framework(s)
(LEGAL/REGULATORY)
LBS social & technical
subsystems
(INDUSTRY)
LBS value chain
(STAKEHOLDER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUBSYSTEM
SOCIAL & TECHNICAL
SUBSYSTEMS
Socio-Technical Design Consultation

38. 1 2 3
Research aims:
To assess the usability of LBS in Australia
To review existing telecommunications (and related) laws
To evaluate LBS stakeholder relationships
To examine and describe the socio-ethical dilemmas
1.NeedsAnalysis
2.Research
3.Consultation
4.Drafting
5.Approval
6.Communication
&Implementation
7.Maintenance
&Review
Content &
application
providers
[developers,
aggregators,
publishers]
Portals &
access
providers
[branded portals]
Wireless
network
operators
[mobile service
providers,
infrastructure
vendors]
Positioning
components
[GPS, mobile
communications
network, short-
range networks]
Handset &
location
technology
vendors
[mobile devices
& applications]
OPERATIONALROLES
NON-OPERATIONALROLES
Other
supportive
roles
[systems
integrators,
billing...]
Government entities
[Federal, State
departments, regulatory
bodies...]
Developers & research
[including universities]
Standardisation
committees & bodies
Users
[consumer, business,
government]
Others
[including industry-specific players...]
Environmentalsub-system,includingbroadsocialcontext
Social & technical sub-systems
Unitofanalysis:country-Australia
LBSvaluechain&stakeholdersPolicydevelopmentSTdesign
Discovery
Systems
Exploration
Systems
Analysis
Initial Design
by Joint
Optimisation
Redesign &
Implementation
Evolution &
Redesign as
Iterative
Process
SOCIO-TECHNICALTHEORY
Environmental sub-system
Social sub-system Technical sub-system
Structure Technology
People Tasks
Theory focuses on the joint optimisation of all
sub-systems in the socio-technical unit, &
examines the nature of interactions between each
of the distinct components
"...the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses & consequences
of information technologies that takes into account their
interaction with institutional & cultural contexts." (Kling, 1999)
SOCIALINFORMATICS
Interdisciplinary
perspective
Focus on
social
consequences
of ICTs
Incorporates
moral & ethical
aspects
Accountsfor
broader social
context, not just
organisational
New
interpretation of
socio-technical
interactions
Data Collection Data analysis
Propose policy
Interview follow-up
Case law & literature
review (qualitative)
User observation:
-GPS data logs
(quantitative)
-Accompanying diary
(qualitative)
Stakeholder interview
1.NeedsAnalysis2.Research3.Consultation4.Drafting
Document analysis
(qualitative)
-Spatial GIS analysis
(quantitative)
-Scenarios & thematic
use cases (qualitative)
Content analysis
THEORETICALFRAMEWORK CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK RESEARCH METHOD & PHASES

39. Content providers
Application &
portal providers
Wireless network
operators
Positioning &
location
technology
vendors
Handset & device
vendors
Other supportive
roles
Standardisation
committees & bodies
Research (research
& development,
academia)
Government entities
OPERATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS NON-OPERATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
Users
Others
information flow/interaction
STAKEHOLDERS

40. Plausible Scenarios to Industry Stakeholders

41. • 37 participants, 35 valid responses
• Vehicle tracker = 9
• Handheld data logger = 17
• Personal smart phone = 5
• Sample data set = 4
Diary entries & reflection Thematic/content analysis Narrative identifying benefits & risks
Data logs Spatial analysis Maps displaying socio-ethical scenarios
Observation
DATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS
Storyboards ranging in risk/
severity level
LBS Observational Study

42. Map tables &
layers created
based on
obfuscated
participant data
Corresponding spatial
scenario produced using
qualitative data,
computational techniques
& aesthetic elements
Data collection  obfuscated location data &
qualitative feedback  thematic & spatial analysis
 RESULTS (Scenarios)

43. 1. Emergency Management

44. 2. Child Protection

45. 3. Employee Monitoring

46. 4. Spousal Tracking

47. 5. Unauthorised Tracking

49. Components of current LBS regulatory framework in Australia
Influencing Telecommunications Regulation,
Law & Policy in Australia

50. Implications
• …for research: pragmatic uses, replicability of methodologies for
other emerging technologies, and in other contexts
• …for industry: informs LBS(N) applications design & development
processes
• …for users: as above, and allows for development of educational and
awareness campaigns
• …for government/policy makers: aids in identifying and responding
to regulatory challenges

51. Conclusion
• Power disproportionality (bidirectional LBSN?)
• M.G. Michael has written of an emerging- überveillance- an
above and beyond almost omnipresent 24/7 surveillance
• The problem:
• Omnipresence will not always equate with omniscience
• Real concern for
• Misinformation
• Misinterpretation
• Information manipulation
• New qualitative opportunities: LBSN with video analytics/ gaming