I think there is an important difference depending on whether people know they are taking part in a study.
To my mind a participant is someone who has agreed to participate in a study.
A data subject is someone who may not be aware of the research, but is one of the subjects being researched.
Consent obviously varies between the two, as therefore does what is reasonable to include in the research, and whether it is reasonable to pseudonymise or anonymise the results.
For example Wikipedians are aware that their editing is public on the Internet. But calculating league tables from that editing and even analysing those patterns by time of day or day of the week is not necessarily something that people think they've agreed to, even if by the letter of the relevant disclaimers arguably they have.
So as a result of longstanding Wikipedia consensus editors can choose to have their total number of edits anonymised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edit... - though they can't opt out of having their total included in that research.
However looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS where statistics are collected on admin actions; It does not have such an opt out mechanism. I suspect this is because the assumption is that when you take an action as an administrator you are open for more scrutiny than when you take an action as an editor.
But knowing what days and what time of day editors edit is far more contentious, and if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#Remin... at least one of those tools operates with an opt in that can be withdrawn.
I would suggest that we restrict participant to people who have chosen to participate, for example by completing a questionnaire. I don't like the term data subject but for want of a better one it probably is worth using that where people have not chosen to participate in a study, but usually one could be specific and refer to editors, admins, RFA candidates or whatever group one is studying.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 24 October 2010 01:52, Fuster, Mayo Mayo.Fuster@eui.eu wrote:
Hello!
In my own Ph.D. research, I refer to my "informants" as participants of the research for epistemological reasons. So I prefer participants. Nevertheless, informant is not only restricted to FBI :-), it is the "hegemonic" concept used in sociology or political science. We have to balance if we prefer participants because it is how better characterise it in our view, or if we priories a concept that will be more easily recognised. Perhaps a solution is to put in the first occasion: participant or informant and from that, to put only participant.
Cheers! Mayo
«·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
Ph.D European University Institute Research collaborator. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting researcher. School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982 Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 E-mail: mayo.fuster@eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
-----Missatge original----- De: rcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org en nom de Luca de Alfaro Enviat el: dt. 19/10/2010 22:48 Per a: riedl@cs.umn.edu; The Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee mailing list Tema: Re: [RCom-l] [Request for input] Developing a research policy
I agree on the preference for participants! Luca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM, John Riedl riedl@cs.umn.edu wrote:
I'm a big fan of "participants". Subjects sounds passive and "operated on" -- which is not a good description of most Wikipedians!
John
P.S. One of our most memorable moments in researching MovieLens was when we launched a new A/B study and our participants figured out what we were doing by comparing notes on our bulletin boards. One of them wrote:
"Once again, thanks for the site. I react in this way, also in part, because probably your widget counters are also gauging this, and I wanted to be an honest little white rat! See: Charly & Of Mice and Men"
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Parul Vora pvora@wikimedia.org wrote:
"subjects" is definitely typical, but in my experience and conversations (mostly at this years wikisym and wikimania) wikipedians feel more comfortable with "participants" and i try to use it where it doesn't confuse/dilute.
On 10/19/10 1:08 PM, Luca de Alfaro wrote:
No, no! "Informants" are the kind that needs FBI protection! :) "subjects" is the usual words, "human guinea-pigs" would be less
ambiguous,
but... :) Luca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:00, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/10/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
subject-matter recruitment
OK, this is definitely the last time I made this typo. I mean recruiting subjects for research projects. :-)
May we redefine it as something like "recruiting informants for research projects"? My first parsing of "subjects" is "topics" and I don't think that I am alone in that.
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l
RCom-l mailing list RCom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l