Does social media intelligence need governance?

The Social Intelligence Lab recently surveyed a segment of our researcher community to get their thoughts on a subject we’ve been thinking about for a while - does social media intelligence need a code of conduct.

Short answer: yes

It’s clear that practitioners and researchers agree that a code of conduct is needed.

‍

Why is a code of conduct needed?

The potential impact on the industry is a key reason our researchers want a code of conduct.

According to our researchers, It should;

1. Be developed with an understanding of the nuances of social intelligence research
2. Be industry-wide, for example, include the tools that serve the industry as well as the practitioners.

Social intelligence is ready to be taken seriously as a discipline and that means creating consistency - getting our house in order, getting us all on the same page and on a level playing field.  There’s a cleaning up element here too. Creating universal guidance would force the issue of ethics, removing grey areas and the risks of bad acting, intentional or not. Eliminating any questionable behavior would inject the industry with confidence and the guidance could be used as a signifier of ethical use and high-quality work.

If we want to see this industry grow, we need to work together towards professionalism. We need to prove our integrity and reassure our clients and colleagues that we are accountable.

Our researcher community is convinced a code of conduct would help them to grow their businesses, departments, and practices.

What could get in the way?

While the benefits are clear, some will see governance as limiting activity or exposing their secrets. Another hurdle might be getting enough engagement in an already disjointed industry.

A code of conduct might include:

1. Principles of a code of conduct that we agree to follow as social intelligence practitioners that cover all aspects of our work from data collection through to analysis and reporting.
2. Ethics around consent.
3. Disciplinary procedures and complaints.
4. Data accountability.
5. A unification of terminology

So what’s next?

Every single researcher we spoke to wants to get involved. It’s clear we need to get moving, and we want to use our position as a neutral community to drive this. The next questions we need to answer are more logistical. We’ve made a start but we’d really appreciate your thoughts.

1. How should we fund the development?
2. Who should form the first working group?

Now is the time for us to make this industry shine! Would you like to help? Any ideas, contributions, thoughts, challenges are greatly welcome. Get in touch with your thoughts here.

‍