Motivations for Sharing News on Social Media

Social media have become an important part of everyday communication, and a platform for sharing and ‘re-sharing’ of information. We discover news through our social networks and pass some of what we encounter along to others in those same networks. Numerous studies focus on the sharing of personal information (both online and offline) but less research examines practices related to the sharing of news—especially sharing via social media. Understanding why we choose to share news and non-personal content online is vital in a world where we increasingly turn to social media and our online social networks for news and information about the world around us. This research explores factors that influence our decision to share and re-share non-personal content with others in an online environment, specifically the choices we make when we share news

OPEN MIND: Shake Up Taboo by Design!

Gamman has contributed a 1,000-word article and a transcript of her keynote from the Open Design Forum 2014, Hong Kong Design Institute

Facebook: public space, or private space?

Social networks have become a central feature of everyday life. Most young people are members of at least one online social network, and they naturally provide a great deal of personal information as a condition for participation in the rich online social lives these networks afford. Increasingly, this information is being used as evidence in criminal and even civil legal proceedings. These latter uses, by actors involved in the justice system, are typically justified on the grounds that social network information is essentially public in nature, and thus does not generate a subjective expectation of privacy necessary to support a civil rights-based privacy protection. This justification, however, is based on the perceptions of individuals who are outside the online social network community, rather than reflecting the norms and privacy practices of participants in online social networks. This project takes a user-centric approach to the question of whether online social spaces are public venues, examining of the information-related practices of social network participants, focusing on how they treat their own information and that of others posted in online social spaces. Our results reveal that online social spaces are indeed loci of public display rather than private revelation: online profiles are structured with the view that ‘everyone’ can see them, even if the explicitly intended audience is more limited. These social norms are inconsistent with the claim that social media are private spaces; instead, it appears that participants view and treat online social networks as public venues

The View From Here: User-Centered Perspectives on Social Network Privacy

A great deal of personal information is released in online social network profiles, and this information is increasingly being sought as evidence in criminal, administrative and civil legal proceedings. Determination of the admissibility of social network profile information rests in part on the issue of subjective expectations of privacy: to what extent do online social network participants expect privacy in their social network profiles? This question is examined through a combination of interviews and focus groups. The results suggest that Facebook as a whole is characterized as a space where participants construct and display a produced version of the self to a large and indeterminate social network. The common perspective is that information posted on social network profiles is selected for social broadcast, and further dissemination (beyond the online social network to which information is disclosed) is therefore both acceptable and to be expected. Although they would prefer profile access to be restricted to a broadly defined social network of friends and acquaintances, online social network participants do not in general expect to control the audience for their profiles, and they therefore typically include only information that ‘everyone’ can know in their online profiles. They thus require and exercise control over the content that is associated with their online profiles, and actions that undermine this control run contrary to privacy expectations

Gastrointestinal perforation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases receiving bevacizumab

AIM To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease. METHODS We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups. CONCLUSION Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone

Migrant networks, language learning and tourism employment

This paper examines the relationship between migrants’ social networks, the processes of language acquisition and tourism employment. Data collected using netnography and interviews are used to identify the strategies that Polish workers in the UK use to develop their language skills. The paper highlights the roles played by co-workers, co-nationals and customers in migrants’ language learning, both in the physical spaces of work and the virtual spaces of internet forums. It also shows how migrant workers exchange knowledge about the use of English during different stages of their migration careers: prior to leaving their country of origin and getting a job, during their employment and after leaving their job. Implications for academic inquiry and human resource management practice are outlined

Employment experiences of Polish migrant workers in the UK hospitality sector.

2010-2011 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journa

Best practices and software for themanagement and sharing of camera trap data for small and large scales studies

Camera traps typically generate large amounts of bycatch data of non-target species that are secondary to the study’s objectives. Bycatch data pooled from multiple studies can answer secondary research questions; however, variation in field and data management techniques creates problems when pooling data from multiple sources. Multi-collaborator projects that use standardized methods to answer broad-scale research questions are rare and limited in geographical scope. Many small, fixed-term independent camera trap studies operate in poorly represented regions, often using field and data management methods tailored to their own objectives. Inconsistent data management practices lead to loss of bycatch data, or an inability to share it easily. As a case study to illustrate common problems that limit use of bycatch data, we discuss our experiences processing bycatch data obtained by multiple research groups during a range-wide assessment of sun bears Helarctos malayanus in Southeast Asia. We found that the most significant barrier to using bycatch data for secondary research was the time required, by the owners of the data and by the secondary researchers (us), to retrieve, interpret and process data into a form suitable for secondary analyses. Furthermore, large quantities of data were lost due to incompleteness and ambiguities in data entry. From our experiences, and from a review of the published literature and online resources, we generated nine recommendations on data management best practices for field site metadata, camera trap deployment metadata, image classification data and derived data products. We cover simple techniques that can be employed without training, special software and Internet access, as well as options for more advanced users, including a review of data management software and platforms. From the range of solutions provided here, researchers can employ those that best suit their needs and capacity. Doing so will enhance the usefulness of their camera trap bycatch data by improving the ease of data sharing, enabling collaborations and expanding the scope of research

Provision of obstetrics and gynaecology services during the COVID-19 pandemic:a survey of junior doctors in the UK National Health Service

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting health services worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the provision of obstetrics and gynaecology services in the UK during the acute-phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Interview-based national survey. Setting: Women’s healthcare units in the National Health Service. Population: Junior doctors in obstetrics and gynaecology. Methods: Participants were interviewed by members of the UKARCOG trainees’ collaborative between 28th March and 7th of April 2020. We used a quantitative analysis for closed-ended questions and a thematic framework analysis for open comments. Results: We received responses from 148/155 units (95%), majority of the participants were in years 3-7 of training (121/148, 82%). Most completed specific training drills for managing obstetric and gynaecological emergencies in women with COVID-19 (89/148, 60.1%) and two-persons donning and doffing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (96/148, 64.9%). The majority of surveyed units implemented COVID-19 specific protocols (130/148, 87.8%), offered adequate PPE (135/148, 91.2%) and operated dedicated COVID-19 emergency theatres (105/148, 70.8%). Most units reduced face-to-face antenatal clinics (117/148, 79.1%), and suspended elective gynaecology services (131/148, 88.5%). The two-week referral pathway for oncology gynaecology was not affected in half of the units (76/148, 51.4%), while half reported a planned reduction in oncology operating (82/148, 55.4%). Conclusion: The provision of obstetrics and gynaecology services in the UK during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be in line with current guidelines, but strategic planning is needed to restore routine gynaecology services and ensure safe access to maternity care on the longterm