Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 23, Issue 4–6, pp 483–512 | Cite as

Good Enough is Good Enough: Overcoming Disaster Response Organizations’ Slow Social Media Data Adoption

  • Andrea H. Tapia
  • Kathleen Moore
Article

Abstract

Organizations that respond to disasters hold unreasonable standards for data arising from technology-enabled citizen contributions. This has strong negative potential for the ability of these responding organizations to incorporate these data into appropriate decision points. We argue that the landscape of the use of social media data in crisis response is varied, with pockets of use and acceptance among organizations. In this paper we present findings from interviews conducted with representatives from large international disaster response organizations concerning their use of social media data in crisis response. We found that emergency responders already operate with less than reliable, or “good enough,” information in offline practice, and that social media data are useful to responders, but only in specific crisis situations. Also, responders do use social media, but only within their known community and extended network. This shows that trust first begins with people and not data. Lastly, we demonstrate the barriers used by responding organizations have gone beyond discussions of trustworthiness and data quality to that of more operational issues.

Key words

humanitarian relief NGO disaster crowdsourcing trust 

References

  1. Adler, B., and De Alfaro, L. (2006). A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW 07), pp. 261–270.Google Scholar
  2. Alpern, K. (1997). What Do We Want Trust to Be? Some Distinctions on Trust. Business and Professional Ethics, vol. 16, no. 1–3, pp. 29–45.Google Scholar
  3. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B. (2011). Information Credibility on Twitter. WWW '11 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pp. 675–684.Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz, Kathy (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (2001). Grounded theory in ethnography. In P. Atkinson & A. Coffey & S. Delamont & J. Lofland & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage. pp. 160–174.Google Scholar
  6. Cheong, M., and Lee, V. (2010). A microblogging-based approach to terrorism informatics: Exploration and chronicling civilian sentiment and response to terrorism events via Twitter. Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coyle, D. and P. Meier. (2009) New Technologies in Emergencies and Conflicts: The Role of Information and social Networks. Washington, D.C. and London, UK: UN Foundation-Vodafone Foundation Partnership.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. de la Torre, L., Dolinskaya, I., Smilowitz, K. (2012). Disaster relief routing: Integrating research and practice. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 46, pp. 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diakopoulos, N., and Shamma, D. (2010). Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). New York: ACM Press. pp. 1195–1198.Google Scholar
  11. Emergency Social Data Summit, (2010) The Case for Integrating Crisis Response with Social Media, August 12, 2010. http://emergencysocialdata.posterous.com/the-case-for-integrating-crisis-response-with
  12. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction, (6th ed) Longman, White Plains, NY.Google Scholar
  13. Giacobe, N., Kim, H., Faraz, A. (2010). Mining social media in extreme events: Lessons learned from the DARPA network challenge. IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), pp.165-171.Google Scholar
  14. Gralla, E., Goentzel, J., Van de Walle, B. (2013). Report from the Workshop on Field Based Decision Makers’ Information Needs in Sudden Onset Disasters. Digital Humanitarian Network. https://app.box.com/s/kneqlcpq99xlkh08w0d6
  15. Granger-Happ, E. (2008). The Good Enough Principle - What we can learn about technology from the pragmatic solutions of nonprofits. Save the Children, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  16. Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2009). Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence and Emergency Events. International Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 6, no. 3/4, pp. 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hui, C., Tyshchuk, Y., Wallace, W., Goldberg, M., & Magdon-Ismail, M. (2012). Information cascades in social media in response to a crisis: a preliminary model and a case study. Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World Wide Web (WWW’12). New York, NY. pp. 653–656.Google Scholar
  18. Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (2013). Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. (https://media.wnyc.org/media/resources/2013/Aug/19/Hurricane_Sandy_Rebuilding_Strategy.pdf).
  19. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: understanding media crowdsourcing usage and communities. (J. Law & J. Hassard, Eds.) Network, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
  20. Juran, J.M. (1988), Juran on Planning for Quality, New York, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Knuth, R. (1999) Sovereignty, globalism, and information flow in complex emergencies. The Information Society, vol. 15, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  22. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, vol. 112, pp. 591–600. ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Lerman, K., & Ghosh, R. (2010). Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the Spread of News on Digg and Twitter social Networks. Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and social Media, pp. 90–97. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2664
  24. Mazzarella, J. (2009), Twitter for Public Safety & Emergency Management, April 28, 2009 (http://preparednesstoday.blogspot.com/2009/04/twitter-for-public-safety-emergency.html)
  25. Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., and Castillo, C. (2010)a. Media crowdsourcing under crisis. Proceedings of the First Workshop on social Media Analytics SOMA, vol.10, pp. 71–79.Google Scholar
  26. Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., and Castillo, C. (2010)b. Media crowdsourcing Under Crisis: Can we trust what we RT? New York, vol.10, pp. 71–79.Google Scholar
  27. Milner, M.E., Verity, A. (2013). Collaborative Innovation in Humanitarian Affairs, Organization and Governance in the Era of Digital Humanitarianism. https://app.box.com/s/oq2gdcy466j6bpdvzyxt
  28. Morris, M. R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., and Schwarz, J. (2012). Tweeting is Believing? Understanding Microblof Credibility Perceptions. Proceedings of CSCW 2012. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  29. Muhren, W. J., Durbic, D and Walle, B. V. D. (2010). Exploring Decision-Relevant Information Pooling by Humanitarian Disaster Response Teams. Journal of Financial Stability, vol. 1, pp. 34–47.Google Scholar
  30. Munro, R. (2011). Subword and spatiotemporal models for identifying actionable information in Haitian Kreyol. CoNLL’11 Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 68–77.Google Scholar
  31. Oricchio, R. (2010). Is Twitter A social Network? Inc. Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/tech-blog/is-twitter-a-social-network.html
  32. Portsea, L. J. (2011). Disaster Relief 2.0: The Future of Information Sharing in Humanitarian Emergencies. Disasters, vol. 16, pp. 1–8. UN Foundation & Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.1992.tb00370.x
  33. Palen, L., and Vieweg, S. (2008). The emergence of online widescale interaction in unexpected events: assistance, alliance. Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2008. Google Scholar
  34. Palen, L., Vieweg, S., and Anderson, K. M. (2010). Supporting “Everyday Analysts” in Safety- and Time-Critical Situations. The Information Society, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palen, L., Vieweg, S., Liu, S. B., and Hughes, A. L. (2009). Crisis in a Networked World: Features of Computer-Mediated Communication in the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech Event.Ssocial Science Computer Review, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 467.Google Scholar
  36. Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., Zhang, J. (2011). Microblogging after a major disaster in China: A case study of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '11. New York: ACM Press. p. 25–34.Google Scholar
  37. Quarantelli, E. L. (1999). Disaster Related social Behavior: Summary of 50 Years of Research Findings. 8Th International Symposium on Natural and Technological Hazards: Hazards 2000, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., and Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake Shakes media crowdsourcing Users: Real-time Event Detection by social Sensors. Proceeding of the conference on the World Wide Web (WWW) 2010, April 26-30, pp. 851–860.Google Scholar
  39. Shklovski, I., Palen, L., Sutton, J. (2008). Finding community through information and communication technology in disaster response. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work CSCW 08, pp. 127–136.Google Scholar
  40. Starbird, K., and Muzny, G. (2012). Learning from the Crowd: Collaborative Filtering Techniques for Identifying On-the-Ground Twitterers during Mass Disruptions. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej and Z. Franco, eds, Proceedings of the 9th International conference for Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Vancouver, Canada, April 2012. Google Scholar
  41. Starbird, K., Palen, L., Hughes, A., Vieweg, S. (2010). Chatter on the Red: What Hazards Threat Reveals About the social Life of Microblogged Information. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '10. New York: ACM Press, pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
  42. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Sutton, J., Palen, L., and Shklovski, I. (2008). Backchannels on the Front Lines: Emergent Uses of social Media in the 2007 Southern California Wildfires. In F. Fiedrich and B. Van de Walle, eds. Proceedings of the 5th International conference for Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Washington, DC, USA, May 2008. Google Scholar
  45. Tapia, A. H., Bajpai, K., Jansen, B. J., and Yen, J. (2011). Seeking the Trustworthy Tweet: Can social mediaData Fit the Information Needs of Disaster Response and Humanitarian Relief Organizations. Proceedings of the 8th International conference for Information systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Lisbon. Portugal. May 10.Google Scholar
  46. Terpstra, T. (2012). Towards a realtime media crowdsourcing analysis during crises for operational crisis management. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej and Z. Franco, eds, Proceedings of the 9th International conference for Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.Google Scholar
  47. Thomson, R., Ito, N., Suda, H., Lin, F., Liu, Y., Hayasaka, R., Isochi, R., Wang, Z. (2012). Trusting Tweets: The Fukushima Disaster and Information Source Credibility on Twitter. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej and Z. Franco, eds, Proceedings of the 9th International conference for Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Vancouver, Canada, April 2012.Google Scholar
  48. Valenzuela, S., N. Park, and Kee, K. F. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 875–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vieweg, S. (2010). Social Media Contributions to the Emergency Arena: Discovery, Interpretation and Implications. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '10, CSCW 2010, February 6–10. New York: ACM Press, pp.515–516.Google Scholar
  50. Vieweg, S., Palen, L., Liu, S. B., Hughes, A. L., and Sutton, J. (2008). Collective intelligence in disaster: examination of the phenomenon in the aftermath of the 2007 Virginia tech shooting. . Proceedings of the 5th International Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Washington DC, USA, May 2008. pp. 44–54.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, R., Mays, R., and Haselkorn, M. (2011). Defining Fast: Factors Affecting the Experience of Speed in Humanitarian Logistics. Proceedings of the 8th International Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM). Lisbon, Portugal. May, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, R., Kon, H. & Madnick, S. (1993), Data Quality Requirements Analysis and Modeling, Data Engineering. Ninth International Conference of Data Engineering(ICDE’93), Vienna, Austria, 19-23 April 1993. IEEEE.Google Scholar
  53. Wild, D. (2010), Allhazards blog. School of Informatics at Indiana University, http://allhazards.blogspot.com/ September 15th, 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPenn State UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations