skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Digestif: Promoting Science Communication in Online Experiments

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Online experiments allow researchers to collect data from large, demographically diverse global populations. Unlike in-lab studies, however, online experiments often fail to inform participants about the research to which they contribute. This paper is the first to investigate barriers that prevent researchers from providing such science communication in online experiments. We found that the main obstacles preventing researchers from including such information are assumptions about participant disinterest, limited time, concerns about losing anonymity, and concerns about experimental bias. Researchers also noted the dearth of tools to help them close the information loop with their study participants. Based on these findings, we formulated design requirements and implemented Digestif, a new web-based tool that supports researchers in providing their participants with science communication pages. Our evaluation shows that Digestif's scaffolding, examples, and nudges to focus on participants make researchers more aware of their participants' curiosity about research and more likely to disclose pertinent research information.

References

  1. David Armstrong, Ann Gosling, John Weinman, and Theresa Marteau. 1997. The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology , Vol. 31, 3 (1997), 597--606.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. American Psychological Association. 2017. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kimberly A Barchard and John Williams. 2008. Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods , Vol. 40, 4 (2008), 1111--1128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Benjamin B Bederson and Alexander J Quinn. 2011. Web workers unite! addressing challenges of online laborers. In Extended Abstracts of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 97--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nicholas Behm, Sherry Rankins-Robertson, and Duane Roen. 2014. The case for academics as public intellectuals. Academe , Vol. 100, 1 (2014), 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Adam J Berinsky, Gregory A Huber, and Gabriel S Lenz. 2012. Using Mechanical Turk as a subject recruitment tool for experimental research . Political Analysis , Vol. 20 (2012), 351--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Nathan Bos, Ann Zimmerman, Judith Olson, Jude Yew, Jason Yerkie, Erik Dahl, and Gary Olson. 2007. From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 12, 2 (2007), 652--672.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Amy Bruckman. 2014. Research ethics and HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI . Springer New York, 449--468.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Amy S Bruckman, Casey Fiesler, Jeff Hancock, and Cosmin Munteanu. 2017. CSCW research ethics town hall: Working towards community norms. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . ACM, 113--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Elizabeth A Buchanan. 1999. An overview of information ethics issues in a world-wide context. Ethics and Information Technology , Vol. 1, 3 (1999), 193--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science , Vol. 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Marissa Burgermaster, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Patricia Davidson, and Lena Mamykina. 2017. The role of explanations in casual observational learning about nutrition. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4097--4145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Terry W Burns, D John O'Connor, and Susan M Stocklmayer. 2003. Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science , Vol. 12, 2 (2003), 183--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Matthew JC Crump, John V McDonnell, and Todd M Gureckis. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS one , Vol. 8, 3 (2013), e57410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Django. 2018. https://www.djangoproject.com/, last accessed April 16, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jessica Ficler and Yoav Goldberg. 2017. Controlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02633 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biome Beha Resea and Kenneth John Pres Ryan. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of Human Subjects of Research-the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research .US Government Printing Office.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christopher Frauenberger, Amy S Bruckman, Cosmin Munteanu, Melissa Densmore, and Jenny Waycott. 2017. Research Ethics in HCI: A town hall meeting. In Extended Abstracts of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1295--1299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Snehal Neil Gaikwad, Durim Morina, Rohit Nistala, Megha Agarwal, Alison Cossette, Radhika Bhanu, Saiph Savage, Vishwajeet Narwal, Karan Rajpal, Jeff Regino, et almbox. 2015. Daemo: A self-governed crowdsourcing marketplace. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. ACM, 101--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Bradley C Duchaine, Christopher F Chabris, Garga Chatterjee, and Jeremy B Wilmer. 2012. Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , Vol. 19, 5 (2012), 847--857.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Marjan Ghazvininejad, Xing Shi, Jay Priyadarshi, and Kevin Knight. 2017. Hafez: an Interactive Poetry Generation System. Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demonstrations (2017), 43--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ivor Goodson. 1999. The educational researcher as a public intellectual. British Educational Research Journal , Vol. 25, 3 (1999), 277--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Samuel D Gosling, Simine Vazire, Sanjay Srivastava, and Oliver P John. 2004. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist , Vol. 59, 2 (2004), 93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Michael D Greenberg, Matthew W Easterday, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2015. Critiki: A scaffolded approach to gathering design feedback from paid crowdworkers. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 235--244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. James C Hamilton. 1999. The ethics of conducting social-science research on the Internet. The Chronicle of Higher Education , Vol. 46, 15 (1999), B6--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. David R Hodge and David F Gillespie. 2007. Phrase completion scales: a better measurement approach than Likert scales? Journal of Social Service Research , Vol. 33, 4 (2007), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. J J Horton, D G Rand, and R J Zeckhauser. 2011. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market . Experimental Economics (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, Foster Provost, and Jing Wang. 2010. Quality management on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 64--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Lilly C Irani and M Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proc. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 611--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. jsPsych. 2017. http://www.jspsych.com, last accessed August 20, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Eunice Jun, Morelle Arian, and Katharina Reinecke. 2018. The potential for scientific outreach and learning in mechanical turk experiments. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Eunice Jun, Gary Hsieh, and Katharina Reinecke. 2017. Types of motivation affect study selection, attention, and dropouts in online experiments. ACM Human-Computer Interaction, Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing , Vol. 1, 2 (2017), 56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1301--1318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Robert Kraut, Judith Olson, Mahzarin Banaji, Amy Bruckman, Jeffrey Cohen, and Mick Couper. 2004. Psychological research online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the conduct of research on the internet. American psychologist , Vol. 59, 2 (2004), 105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. LabintheWild. 2017. http://www.labinthewild.org, last accessed September 13, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Edith Law, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Andrea Wiggins, Mary L Gray, and Alex C Williams. 2017. Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Research: Implications of Uncertainty.. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 1544--1561. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Kurt Luther, Jari-Lee Tolentino, Wei Wu, Amy Pavel, Brian P Bailey, Maneesh Agrawala, Björn Hartmann, and Steven P Dow. 2015. Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 473--485. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods , Vol. 44, 1 (2012), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. MySocialBrain. 2017. http://www.mysocialbrain.org, last accessed August 20, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Social Psychology Network. 2017. http://www.socialpsychology.org, last accessed August 20, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Nigini Oliveira, Eunice Jun, and Katharina Reinecke. 2017. Citizen science opportunities in volunteer-based online experiments. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 6800--6812. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making , Vol. 5, 5 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2015. LabintheWild: Conducting large-scale online experiments with uncompensated samples. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1364--1378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2000. The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. Psychological Experiments on the Internet (2000), 89--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, M Silberman, Andrew Zaldivar, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In Extended abstracts of ACM Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2863--2872. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. SciStarter. 2017. http://www.scistarter.com, last accessed August 20, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Priya Sharma and Michael J Hannafin. 2007. Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments , Vol. 15, 1 (2007), 27--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. M Silberman, Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010b. Sellers' problems in human computation markets. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation. ACM, 18--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. M Six Silberman, Lilly Irani, and R Ross. 2010a. Ethics and tactics of professional crowdwork. XRDS , Vol. 17, 2 (2010), 39--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. British Psychological Society. 2007. British Psychological Society Report of the working party on conducting research on the Internet: Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online. http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/conducting_research_on_the_internet-guidelines_for_ethical_practice_in_psychological_research_online.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Elliot Soloway, Mark Guzdial, and Kenneth E Hay. 1994. Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. interactions , Vol. 1, 2 (1994), 36--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 1999. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness .HeinOnline.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Joseph B Walther. 2002. Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology , Vol. 4, 3 (2002), 205--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Andrea Wiggins and Kevin Crowston. 2011. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Madeline Wishart and Marion Kostanski. 2009. First Do No Harm: Valuing and Respecting the'Person'in Psychological Research Online. Counselling, Psychotherapy, and Health , Vol. 5, 1 (2009), 300--328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Games With Words. 2017. http://www.gameswithwords.org, last accessed August 15, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Digestif: Promoting Science Communication in Online Experiments

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
      November 2018
      4104 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3290265
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2018
      Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader