SUNDAY JUNE 15, 1:30-2:45 PM, Mt. Yale (Grand 3)
FOCUS OF THE SESSION:
The focus of the session is to (re-)examine three major meta-constructs from online interaction research in their application to online hate speech research, in order to surface dilemmas and theoretical problems, and tentative research solutions: Identity, Interactivity, and Anonymity.
Construct 1: Identity
Research shows that it matters who (what race, gender, or other identity group) seems to be an offender, who it is who seems to speak for victims, and who seems to offer deterrence messages, on outcomes related to online hate. What do we know and what are the next steps to be taken in the study of who's who in online hate. Relatedly, does evidence exist demonstrating when, how, and why hate posters in groups or dyads reveal their offline names and identities to one another as has been the case in so many "virtual communities" before? Is individual identification an element in systematic efforts to recruit and radicalize individuals into hate?
Construct 2: Interactivity
Most research on online hate focuses on the personalities of those who send it, its lexical contents and contours, and its prevalence and effects, through surveys and cross-sectional analyses. Less research looks at online hate as an interactive process, examining chains of anticipation and creation of messages, posting, feedback and replies, and subsequent messaging, and the social influence and/or self-effects that follow. What has and can the study of serial processes and effects tell us about hate messaging online? What concepts and methods based on temporal or longitudinal analyses inform our understanding of hate messaging and its promulgation?
Construct 3: Anonymity
The anonymity of internet communication is a longstanding "culprit" for a variety of online (mis-) behaviors, from flaming in the 1990s to contemporary hate posting on social media. Yet the concept of anonymity is seldom interrogated, and empirical studies that examine its influence report no effect. Exceptionally few social media offer actual anonymity, affording users the options of pseudonymity or actual identification. How has, or how may research explicate pseudonymity and identification in online hate? How does it correspond to one's visual (profile) self-presentation? Possible tensions include group identification, needs for recognizability and popularity, and evasion of offline stigma.
ORGANIZATION:
Welcome (4 minutes)
Quick welcome and background for why we are here (asking participants to scan QR code and complete online survey providing their contact info, basic interests in online hate, references to their own work in this space, etc., to later share with attendees); Craig Scott.
Part 1 – Introductory/Overview Comments from 3 Organizers (20 minutes)
The three convening researchers open the session with 5- to 7-minute presentations of their concerns about the constructs and questions, referencing their own and others' work, to set the stage to facilitate breakout discussions on those issues. (20 mins)
Identity: Diana Rieger
Interactivity: Joe Walther
Anonymity: Craig Scott
Part 2 – Breakouts to Discuss 3 Constructs (30 minutes) in 3 groups depending on attendance and interests
Discussion leaders facilitate focused discussions related to each of the respective constructs. Priority is on those in attendance to share discoveries and issues and questions related to work they are doing in this space. Discussion leaders look for opportunities to raise issues related to conflicting findings or problems, points of integration and conflict, gaps/opportunities for future research, methodological challenges, etc.
Part 3 – Debrief (15 minutes)
Attendees reunite for breakout discussion leaders to share 2-3 key takeaways and emerging research questions for 5 minutes each.
Part 4 – Wrap up (5 minutes)
Closing synthetic comments from the conveners (5 minutes total).