Facebook Has Frozen Researchers Out. How Can It Invite Them Back?

Madison Shumway is a journalist and gender researcher with interests in new media and women’s political representation. Find her on Twitter: @madisonshumway

For academics, Facebook can be more than a time-suck. The online home of baby pictures, cat videos, Hillary For Prison memes and multi-level marketing schemes is also a virtual treasure trove of information for researchers studying personality, social behavior, political communication, and more. With demographic information, interests, participation in social groups, and opinions and reactions posted by individuals for the world to see, Facebook composes a valuable informational amalgam that can be used by researchers in various social science fields.

Unfortunately, researchers not beholden by academic ethics and IRBs have also taken advantage of this wealth of information. After news of Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data during the 2016 presidential election broke, Facebook cracked down on its data access permissions. Before the change, researchers not affiliated with the site could once access Facebook’s Application Programming Interface (API) for data collection purposes; now the site has effectively locked down access to all but a select few.

As Marco Bastos and Shawn T. Walker write in The Conversation, the move protects user data at the cost of the bulk of Facebook social science research:

Given the mammoth size of Facebook’s userbase (2.13 billion at the last count), external scrutiny of the content on the social network is extremely important. In recent years, however, researchers have been fighting an uphill battle with the company to provide access to data. Now its latest decision has made it virtually impossible to carry out large-scale research on Facebook.

The changes make defunct software and libraries dedicated to academic research on Facebook, including netvizz, NodeXL, SocialMediaLab, fb_scrape_public and Rfacebook, all of which relied on Facebook’s APIs to collect data.

Systematic research on Facebook content is now untenable, turning what was already a worryingly opaque, siloed social network into a black box that is arguably even less accountable to lawmakers and the public – both of whom benefited from academics who monitored developments on the site.

So while Facebook’s newly-expressed dedication to protecting its users data is somewhat admirable, the new restrictions prevent valuable research from taking place. Studies that could help us understand social networks, campaign strategy, gendered online harassment, conversational tendencies, narcissistic personality traits, or virtually any other topic that could benefit from Facebook’s breadth of data are now nearly impossible to conduct legally.

Clearly, Facebook’s data represents a valuable resource to social science researchers. At the same time, ethical academics understand the necessity of keeping individuals’ information secure. Robbie Gonzalez writes in Wired:

The company currently possesses some of the best social data in the world. Is its chief obligation to share it or protect it? Responsible researchers think the answer is yes.

So what’s the solution? As a beginning researcher interested in applying Facebook data to the study of gender and political campaigns, I hope to see a more formal access point for academics wanting to access user information. Academics, from undergraduate interns to tenured professors, are already familiar with the process of obtaining IRB approval for studies and proving their use of data constitutes minimal risk to associated individuals.

My solution is not groundbreaking—researchers like Jacob Metcalf and Casey Fiesler also propose an ethics review process that would require academics to “demonstrate trustworthiness, such as public registration of research projects, evidence of funding sources, or a record of consent and/or terms and conditions” before accessing Facebook data. “Without that transparency,” they say, “we cannot help protect users of the platforms from abuse like that perpetrated by Cambridge Analytica.”

Making data access available to researchers unaffiliated with Facebook, who undergo ethics trainings and implement data security protocols, will benefit both academics and Facebook. Continuing to restrict access to only an elite few will severely dampen academic inquiry into the platform’s political and sociological complexities and reduce transparency between Facebook and the public.

Finding the balance between security and access will be tricky, but as Facebook works to restore its reputation, granting access to ethical academic researchers is a vital step in increasing transparent communication between the site and its users. The research produced if this access is provided will advance social science knowledge and help create a more well-understood and secure social media environment.

Latinos Unidos

by Sandra Carrillo

Since his presidential bid in June of 2015, Donald J. Trump has targeted minorities with hateful and racist rhetoric. Trump put Latinos, specifically Mexicans, in a negative limelight by describing undocumented Mexican immigrants as rapists, criminals, and drug dealers. As the current president of the United States, Donald Trump has not changed his stance on immigration policy and the issues surrounding the broken immigration system. Not only has he continuously mentioned building a wall, he removed DACA from thousands of dreamers. Recently, the Trump administration has been separating young children from their mothers and families at the border. Immigration policy has long been an issue that divides Latinos within the United States. Latinos tend to have some level of political connectedness (shared/linked fate) except for when it comes to immigration. There is intergroup conflict with immigration that affects how the overall Latino population politically supports this issue. However, there have been instances, such as the 2006 immigration protests, that have brought the Latino community together regardless of their status. Will this current issue regarding basic human rights and immigration have the same effect on the Latino community?

Vargas et al.[1] suggests that current immigration policies have an impact on Latino group identity. Previous research indicates that there is a positive relationship between discrimination and linked fate among Latinos. Trump’s anti-immigrant policy and rhetoric is often unjustly associated with Latinos regardless of their documented status which in turn affects Latino group identity. Latinos across the United States are increasingly experiencing discrimination just based on their Latino identity and use of Spanish. Since current immigration policy influences the levels of discrimination that Latinos in the US are facing, I argue that Latinos should have an increase in their linked fate regarding the current issue of separating families. If there is an increase in linked fate, there should be a higher likelihood of Latinos organizing themselves and collectively acting on such an atrocious issue our country is facing. Although immigration has been a topic that divides the Latino community up to a degree, there should be some middle ground where most Latinos can meet especially since the issue of separating families goes above and beyond just immigration policy. There are basic human rights being violated through the act of separating families.

With current anti-immigration sentiments increasing discrimination towards Latinos, will Latinos have an increase in linked fate and act collectively as a group regarding the separation of families? One should hope that Latinos can overcome their differences and stance on immigration policy and come together to advocate for the safety and basic human rights of the children and families being separated. There are no biblical references that can justify what is happening at the border. I believe that the only way to truly make any impact and positively change what is happening to these families is if Latinos unite and demand action. It is time to put the saying “Latinos unidos jamas seran vencidos” to action and have it also mean Latinos not separated. It is time for the Latino community to demonstrate the political power they have as a collective group.

[1] Vargas, Edward D., Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Juan A. Valdez. 2017. “Immigration Policies and Group Identity: How Immigrant Laws Affect Linked Fate among U.S. Latino Populations.” The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 2(01): 35–62.

A Summit of Hope or a Foreshadow of Despair?

by Kayla Parnin

Today the sun will set on what is hailed across the land as a “historic” meeting, the first of its kind, between a sitting President of the United States, and a North Korean leader. Details about the finer workings of the whole summit are due to come out in a few days, but for now there are a few things we all know:

1. Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un signed a statement for denuclearization.
2. Trump agreed to stop join military dealings with South Korea.
3. North Korea would assist in finding and returning soldier remains from the Korean War of the 50s.

As someone thoroughly interested in the interaction between eastern Asia and the world, I suppose I find myself not as into the results of this as I want to be. Maybe this is because it only just finished, and things are still murky about everything behind the scenes, or maybe it’s just a gut feeling… but after the way the G7 Summit was handled just before this, I don’t think it’s something that will look too good on the “historic” scale of the future.

Summits are the pinnacle of international interactions, having started back in World War II with the meetings of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. The term was coined back then as well, and since then they have become more numerous and the leading way for international governance to be displayed to the public at large.

The only drawback for this, or at least for it being so recent is the varied way that social media can take it. Theories fly, people take sides, and just like the inauguration of Donald Trump, it is likely to be given a lot more scrutiny than most things. Not to say it is necessarily a bad thing, considering this was the first, and it is important to mention that, but it can lead to a dangerous and divisive future for many around the world.

Mainly because of one of those theories that has circulated is how this is falling in line with history – the actions of withdrawing from the G7 Summit and going to blows with our neighbors to the north, following the relations with North Korea have put people at a pause; it never looks good when a country tries to burn its bridges with allies that have stuck with them over the years for peace, and to embrace the countries that have such (almost violently) different views than ours.

Maybe it won’t be as bad as history dictates. Maybe there is peace to be found here, and maybe under President Trump, the hostilities that North Korea has presented to the world will cease. Maybe in the next Presidency, relations with our allies can be reconnected without the loss of whatever gains were acquired on this June 12^th. Theories and debates aside, all the people of the world can do is simply wait and see, and hope for the best.

I don’t smell napalm in the morning yet… do you?

Nine Women Up to Bat in Tonight’s Gubernatorial Primaries

Madison Shumway is a journalist and gender researcher with interests in new media and women’s political representation. Find her on Twitter: @madisonshumway

It’s been an exciting year for women in politics. Women are running in record numbers, and so far in the primary election season, they’re enjoying unprecedented wins.

According to data from the Center for American Women and Politics, 456 women have filed to run for U.S. House this year, and 116 have already won their states’ primary election. Compare that to 2016, when 272 women ran for House seats and 167 won. So far in the election cycle, 51 women have filed to run for U.S. Senate, and 4 have won their primaries. Two years ago, 40 women ran for senate seats, 15 of them going on to win their primaries.

CAWP data also shows significant gains for women running for governor. This year, 60 women have filed to run in 28 states, and 8 have already won their states’ primaries. In 2016, only 6 women ran in gubernatorial elections, and 2 won. This year’s slate of candidates represents major progress, especially considering the U.S. has only seen 39 women governors in its history.

Of course, all women elected to public office perform valuable roles. But I’m particularly interested in this last set of women, who are running for high-profile executive positions. Their numbers are stunning, and many of their wins are historic. Take Stacey Abrams, the first black woman to be a major-party nominee for governor; Lupe Valdez, Texas’ first LGBT and Latinx nominee; or Paulette Jordan, who would become the country’s first Native American governor and Idaho’s first woman governor if elected. (Full disclosure: as a feminist academic living in Idaho, I’m a major Jordan fan.) Women running for governor in 2018 are proving themselves qualified, capable, formidable candidates who represent, to many Americans, change in their democratic system.

Tonight’s primary elections in Maine, Nevada, and South Carolina could add to their ranks. Nine women will compete for their states’ top position, and several have optimistic odds.

MAINE

In Maine, attorney general Janet Mills is viewed as the Democrats’ top contender. She’s served as AG since 2012 and is endorsed by EMILY’s List. Also in the Democratic race are Donna Dion, former mayor of Biddeford; Diane Russell, who served in the Maine House of Representatives; and Betsy Sweet, who served as director of the Maine Women’s Lobby. On the Republican side, former commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services Mary Mayhew ranks second among the four candidates. Interestingly, Maine has just instituted a ranked-choice voting system, which is thought to elect more women to office.

NEVADA

Two women seek executive office in Nevada tonight. Democrat Chris Giunchigliani, a former Clark County commissioner who has been endorsed by EMILY’s List and by Hillary Clinton, faces a nail-bitingly close race with businessman Steve Sisolak. Business professional and self-described “political outsider” Stephanie Carlisle will appear on the Republican ballot.

SOUTH CAROLINA

The Palmetto state underwent a leadership shakeup in 2017 after former governor Nikki Haley resigned to serve as ambassador to the U.N. Henry McMaster, who filled Haley’s seat, is running for his first full term as governor. He is challenged by Republican Catherine Templeton, a prolific attorney who reportedly turned down an offer to act as Donald Trump’s labor secretary. If McMaster does not collect over 50 percent of the vote tonight (which is likely), he and Templeton will progress to a runoff. On the Democratic ticket, lawyer Marguerite Willis is engaged in a close race that will also likely progress to a runoff.

In 2018, Women Still Face a Sexist Media Environment

Madison Shumway is a journalist and gender researcher with interests in new media and women’s political representation. Find her on Twitter: @madisonshumway

It’s no secret that women running for office have long grappled with unequal media coverage. Thankfully, traditional media coverage of women candidates has improved over time—but women face new challenges with the advent of online and social media.

THE BAD NEWS

In the past, women have contended with unequal coverage quantity and with coverage that focuses more on appearance, familial status, and other personal traits than on policy positions. While the media environment has improved for women candidates somewhat, women still encounter sexist reportage that is exacerbated by increasingly visible online and social media.

Early research in the area of media coverage of women candidates found a lack of parity of coverage quantity between men and women running for the same office. Even women performing similarly to men in the polls received less coverage. The disparity was thought to have negative impact on voter recognition and perceptions of viability.

Coverage has evened out over time, and women candidates can expect to receive coverage in amounts equal to men running in the same race. In fact, women sometimes receive more coverage than men, perhaps because some women are considered novelties.

Even though coverage of men and women candidates has become more equal in terms of coverage amount, women still face challenges related to the substance of that coverage. Coverage of women is more likely to focus on personal traits and viability than on issues and more likely to focus on appearance and family status than coverage of men. Interviews with women in office back up these assertions: women MPs in the U.K., Australia, and South Africa, for example, say their appearance garners more attention in the media than their words, and that media repeatedly included their age, fashion sense, and domestic and family circumstances in coverage, more so than with their male colleagues.

While some more recent research suggests that the situation is improving, perhaps because women are no longer perceived as novel, it’s also suggested that women running for executive office (whether national or state) still face many of the above challenges.

There’s also a major media shift occurring that women candidates must reckon with. As social media becomes an increasingly important part of political campaigns, and as blogs (like this one), forums, and other forms of online communication flourish, women must be prepared to combat increased misogyny and negative coverage. Absent the editorial filters and expectation of objectivity obligated by traditional journalistic practices, the communication outlets facilitated by the internet can allow sexism to bloom. As Conroy et al. (2015) asserts, “new media is worse than old media for female candidates when it comes to negative tone and hard sexism.”

THE GOOD NEWS

While online and social media may present a more hostile environment for women running for office, they also constitute a powerful campaign tool. Women can compensate for potential discrepancies in media coverage by emphasizing their policy positions or playing up conventionally masculine or feminine traits. Carlin and Winfrey, in their 2009 study of women running for executive office, assert that “women candidates and their campaign staffs need to decide to attack sexism and to attack it early and consistently.” Social media may allow women to proactively balance gendered media coverage and publicly respond to sexist attacks even as it presents new hurdles of sexist coverage to tackle.