Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 263–272 | Cite as

Into the Meta: Research Methods for Moving Beyond Social Media Surfacing

  • Hannah R. GerberEmail author
  • Tom Liam Lynch
Original Paper

Abstract

This article examines the role of social media metadata in conducting studies of professional development in social media spaces. It traces the brief history of research surrounding social media spaces, noting the lack of research that drills into social media metadata in research on professional development. Framed through a software studies perspective, this article provides a deeper examination of the historical nuances of metadata and explores two distinct methods to procuring social media metadata for research on social media enhanced professional development: using pre-built tools and calling an API (application programming interface) directly. The article raises important ethical considerations around using social media metadata, and touches briefly upon ideological questions associated with the ways companies collect, store, share, and monetize users’ metadata. To overcome these limitations and biases, the authors propose a mixed methods approach through examining back end metadata, employing front-end surfacing techniques of the social media applications, and engaging in traditional qualitative methods of interviews and focus groups for the richest research.

Keywords

Metadata API Social media Professional development 

References

  1. Berry, D. (2011). The philosophy of software: Code and mediation in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2013). Crisis communication in natural disasters: The queensland floods and christchurch earthquakes. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, J., Abrams, A., & Dunphy, M. (2016). Educators’ professional uses of pinterest. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 1925–1930). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. (2007). Social scholarship on the rise. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.stoa.org/archives/628
  6. Curwood, J. C. (2014). Reader, writer, gamer: Online role-playing games as literary response. In H. R. Gerber & S. S. Abrams (Eds.), Bridging literacies with videogames (pp. 53–66). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  7. Ebner, M. (2009). Introducing microblogging: How single presentations can be enhanced by the mass. Journal of research in Innovative Teaching, 2(1), 91–100.Google Scholar
  8. Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2012). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in a large-lecture hall. Learning, Media, & Technol, 36(3), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frabetti, F. (2015). Software theory: A cultural and philosophical study. New York: Rowan & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  10. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, H. R., Abrams, S. S., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2017). Conducting qualitative research of learning in online spaces. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Gitelman, L. (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Greenhow, C. & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology. Google Scholar
  14. Haworth, R. (2016). Personal learning environments: A solution for self-directed learners. TechTrends, 60(4), 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Highfield, T. (2013). Following the yellow jersey: Tweeting the tour de france. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 249–261). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Ingram, J., Niemeyer, D. J., & Gerber, H. R. (2015). #Satire, fandom, and the US testing culture paper presented at the 19th European conference on literacy. Austria: Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  17. Internet World Statistics (2016). Internet World Statistics. Retreived from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
  18. Jockers, M. L. (2014). Text analysis with R for students of literature. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jungherr, A., Jurgens, P., & Schoen, H. (2012). Why the pirate party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: a response to tumasjan, sprenger, sander, & welpe, ‘predicting elections and twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: software and everyday life. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, J., & Bonk, C. (2016). Social network analysis of peer relationships and online interactions in a blended class using blogs. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li, J., & Greenhow, C. (2015). Scholars and social media: tweeting in the conference backchannel for professional learning. Educational Media International, 52, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch, T. L. (2015). The hidden role of software in educational research: policy to practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Manguel, A. (2008). The library at night. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Manovich, L. (2012). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/15
  27. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and society (pp. 373–384). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research (version 2.0): Recommendations from the AoIR working committee. Google Scholar
  29. Niemeyer, D., & Gerber, H. R. (2014). Proceedings of the 10th annual games, learning, and society conference a framework for understanding student perceptions of academic writing connections in fandom spaces. Madison: WI.Google Scholar
  30. O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Pham, D. S., Bateman, J., & Moere, A. V. (2016). A digital mixed methods research design: integrating multimodal analysis with data mining and information visualization for big data analytics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. doi: 10.1177/1558689816651015.Google Scholar
  31. Pasquinelli, M. (2015). Italian operaismo and the information machine. Theory, Culture, Society, 32(3), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rambukanna, N. (2015). Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roach, A. K., & Beck, J. J. (2012). Before coffee, facebook: New literacy learning for 21st century teachers. Language Arts, 89(4), 244–255.Google Scholar
  34. Tumsjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sander, P. G., Welpe, I. M. (2009). Predicting elections and Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, (pp. 178-185).Google Scholar
  35. Welevrede, E. (2016). Repurposing digital methods: The research affordances of platforms and engines. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, J. A., Berg, H., Gerber, H. R., Miller, M. S., Cox, D., Votteler, N. K., et al. (2011). I get distracted by their being distracted: the etiquette of in-class texting. Eastern Education Review, 40(1), 48–56.Google Scholar
  37. Williamson, B. (2015). Governing software: networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yau, N. (2011). Visualize this: The FlowingData guide to design, visualization, and statistics. Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Yousefi, A., & Yousefi, S. (2007). Metadata: A new word for an old concept. Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 1–7.Google Scholar
  40. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zimmer, M. (2016, May). OkCupid study reveals the perils of big-data science. Wired MagazineGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language, Literacy, and Special PopulationsSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationPace UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations