MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808426044

No. 26: Social Media, The Internet and Diasporas for Development

2011· article· en· W2808426044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Crush, Cassandra Eberhardt, Mary Caesar, Abel Chikanda, Wade Pendleton, Ashley Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetSocial mediaInternet privacyMedia studiesPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyPublic relationsWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent focus on diasporas by policy-makers researchers has highlighted the rich potential of migrants as a force for shaping development activities in their countries of origin. The study of diasporas in development presents researchers a number of significant challenges. As Vertovec and Cohen suggest, ‘one of the major changes in migration patterns is the growth of populations anchored … neither at their places of origin nor at their places of destination’. The fluid, multi-sited and multi-generational nature of diaspora groupings poses considerable methodological challenges of definition, identification, location, sampling and interviewing.\nAs the nature of African diasporas are constantly in flux so too should the methodologies we use to study them. In practice, traditional approaches lead to the same methodological roadblocks. Census and immigration data (particularly from destination countries) can provide an overall picture of diaspora stocks, flows and locations. However, privacy issues generally preclude these sources from providing disaggregated data at the level of the individual migrant or migrant household. Surveys of diaspora members have therefore become the standard means of collecting information on diaspora characteristics, identities, activities and linkages. This immediately raises a set of problems and challenges. Census data can tell us the size of the population to sample but not who the individuals are, where they live and how to contact them. Without a sampling frame, researchers tend to rely instead on ‘snowball’, ‘purposive’ or ‘convenience’ sampling. This has produced a disproportionate number of studies that rely on key informant and focus group interviews in order to create a profile of diasporas and their development-related activities.\nDiasporas are often geographically dispersed within a country and across different countries. Cost and time constraints and the bias of snowball and convenience sampling lead to a focus on sub-sets. Studies of diaspora members in particular cities or regions are especially common. While sample sizes vary considerably, there is a marked reliance on very small samples, which raises obvious questions about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.\nThe mail-out survey is still the preferred method of reaching members of a geographically dispersed diaspora, although response rates remain stubbornly low. To contact members of the diaspora, mailing lists are compiled from organizations that keep, and are willing to share, membership lists (such as diaspora organizations, embassies, alumni associations, immigrant service agencies and religious organizations). However, this means an inherent sampling bias since data collected from these individuals and groups has the potential to be skewed towards diaspora members actively engaged with their origin country. This method of ‘accessing the diaspora through the diaspora’ is also unlikely to provide much information on ‘hidden’ members of a diaspora whose immigration status may be undocumented or uncertain and who are wary of disclosing personal information directly to researchers. Researchers have also noted that members of vulnerable populations such as asylum seekers and refugees might be reluctant to provide personal information due to fear and trust issues.\nTo identify and connect with larger numbers, different strategies need to be adopted. In this context, the potential of the internet has rarely been considered. Since the advent of the internet age, more than one billion people have become connected to the World Wide Web (WWW), creating seemingly limitless opportunities for communication. The past decade has also seen a major increase in the use of the internet by diaspora individuals and groupings. The internet has not only facilitated remittance transfers, but has increased communication among and between diasporas and influenced the formation of diasporic identities. In this context, the potential of web-based methodologies in diaspora research appears promising. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we argue for supplementing conventional approaches with new methodologies that embrace the connectivity of diasporas, the emergence of social media and the potential of online surveys. Second, we illustrate the potential of this approach through discussion of the methods adopted in our current research on the African diaspora in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207