Proposal to participate in EU research project

@JohnKuti yes I agree. It got obscured a little bit in the proposal but you can see in the text that Lozana initially provided above in the "Commitment requested" section that they are looking for volunteers to "Review the research related to their practice to provide feedback." I can add an item to the proposal that indicates that volunteers will share these documents with the co-op as they are made available. Would that help address your concern?

@Ed Summers edsu yes that's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. Probably members would like to get information about the research while it's happening.

@JohnKuti thanks! I've added item 4 to hopefully address this.

I'm a social researcher, so I'm predisposed to support this. I'm very much in favor of people participating in research, so I voted yes.

I do want to clarify two things, though: (a) I don't understand what it means to "volunteer to represent SocialCoop," and (b) I don't think individuals need permission from the group to participate in research as individuals.

I'm honestly not sure what representing the project means. I'm skeptical that the authority to represent the project formally is necessary for any research project. If necessary, I'm not comfortable delegating authority in this way.

Second, I feel strongly that anybody should be able to participate in a survey, interview, or other form of research about their personal experiences, feelings, and understandings of SocialCoop. I don't think we need a vote for this, and I don't want a vote in favor here to be taken as some precedent that this is required. If we are talking about sharing nonpublic information, database dumps, private governance decisions, and so on, that might require a decision that involves the group. That said, I don't think SocialCoop should have any claim over our members' ability to reflect on their experiences here.

@Benjamin Mako Hill this is a really good point, thanks for raising it. When approached by Lozana I struggled with whether it even made sense to surface this as a proposal. The thing that pushed me over the edge was that she was asking not only for my participation as an interview subject, but also if I would be comfortable in writing a letter of support for using SocialCoop as a case study in the research. I guess I could have chosen to do this as myself but I didn't feel that I could speak on behalf of the coop. I thought that it would be better to be able to point to this vote and discussion as the coop's support for her project (if it passes).

I think your point that individuals can choose to participate in the research independent of this proposal is (of course) correct, and that in this regard the proposal is kinda superfluous. However I think it might help strengthen Lozana's proposal to be able to say that she has the support of SocialCoop in using it as a case study. This discussion can also serve as a jumping off point for her to discover people who are interested in participating, and generating a more collaborative relationship with the research (similar to post.lurk.org's participation) rather than a few people independently consenting to be interviewed. Think about it as shifting the power dynamic between who is studying and who is being studied.

If all this means you want to switch your vote I can live with that. But thank you for supporting the overall goal when the details appeared murky.

@Ed Summers edsu I think research on the Fediverse is very important and potentially useful! I'd love to see as much of it as possible.

To be clear, I think it's very nice for a researcher to let a community know they will be writing about that community in advance and ask if folks have concerns or ideas. I think it leads to better research! In that sense, I think that Lozana's approach seems like a wonderful model.

Although I think it's best practice, I just want to state for the record that I don't think having a vote is or should be a necessary step before someone conducts research. Not unless that research requires something that is private and governed by the community itself. Similarly, anyone here should feel empowered to participate in research as it pertains to their personal feelings, beliefs, and so on. I think this would be true even if the community voted against empowering you or others to represent us in this pool. social.coop, the group, doesn't get to veto that

@Benjamin Mako Hill - agree. and from a practical perspective this step made it visible to everyone that this is happening and an opportunity.

@Benjamin Mako Hill without this vote I don't think it's possible for me to write a letter that cites this vote and says that social.coop agrees to be a site for the research? I agree with what you wrote above, but feel like you are overlooking this aspect. Am I looking at this wrong? Perhaps the proposal should have been on the letter of support itself, instead of these elaborate rules, which aren't binding anyway since people can independently participate no matter what happens.

Unfortunately Lozana is under a deadline to submit her research proposal (I'm sure you can relate) so there isn't time to redo the details. It would have been helpful if you had raised this issue during the discussion, but realize we are all busy. Thanks again for not letting your reservations about this proposal as a precedent for future research stop it from moving forward.

@Ed Summers edsu That makes sense. And since that is what these researchers want/need, I agree this is a good process. The proposal should probably have been about the letter, but I'm happy with this proposal as is. I voted in favor. I don't see any reason to redo anything.

If someone needs a letter on behalf of the group, we should decide as a group. Just like this My comments are not about stopping this proposal. They are about ensuring that the existence of this (almost certainly successful) proposal does not become a precedent for other researchers going forward. Whether or not they want it, I believe it's unnecessary to get a letter like this to conduct a study of social coop that relies on public data and interviews with individual participants about nonprivate things.

If somebody wants to write a scholarly case study of the social.coop governance systems in ways that conform to all the normal ethical rules and norms that govern academic research, I think they should be able to go for it. No permission or notification is needed, even if it is appreciated. If folks here disagree with that, we can have another discussion about that, separate from this proposal.

Following the approval of this proposal I have signed a letter to indicate our willingness to be a case study for Dr Rossenova's research project. I've attached the letter here. In hindsight it would have made more sense to simply vote on whether we should sign this letter. But hopefully the framed discussion here was helpful.

Thank you @Ed Summers edsu for handling this so well and for respecting my comments. Also, thank you for helping these researchers! I very much look forward to seeing what they find!