Great post Heather, thank you for sharing all this info. In the community metrics section you mention ‘last years OSM survey’: what was this on? where can I get hold of it? Cheers

AN UPDATE ON THE INVALID VOUCHER CODES

My sincere apologies for not having been in touch sooner with those affected. Having admittedly let this slip to the bottom of the pile, I have today in touch with the relevant admin department and been assured that this will be actioned asap. I will be in touch with new codes as soon as I have them. I have not forgotten!

Looking forward to this discussion!

Thanks for sharing the report RebeccaF

Cheers Zoe

To the winners, it has come to my attention that the voucher is only valid on the amazon.co.uk site (despite stating otherwise on the terms and conditions). This may be an issue in terms of postage charges for those of you not based in the UK.

I will investigate this and contact those of you affected directly. My apologies!

Apologies for the confusion Dzertanoj; I meant ‘needed’ to complete the survey, rather than to participate in OSM - that is exactly what I am hoping (through the survey results) to ascertain!

I agree btw, that the gender bias reflects a lack of desire to participate, but one must question why this is the case. Several papers on gender bias have sought to explore this phenomenon. It is also the subject of one of my own papers (in progress) which I hope to share with the OSM community in due course. For me, the gender bias in OSM requires a three-step approach: firstly to describe the problem (what is the impact?); secondly to explain the problem (why is this the case?); and thirdly to address the problem (how can the bias be mitigated?).

If anyone would like to participate but has not yet done so, given the terrific response so far (thank you!) the survey will be open until 15th September 2017 (link in the diary entry above).

As a researcher who is currently actively involved in undertaking research about the mapping activities of the OSM community I fully appreciate the problems outlined above so really welcome and support the objectives as stated.

My own recent research activities have been met with a mixed response from the community and whilst I welcome all feedback, improving communication between researchers and the OSM community would be a really worthwhile process. Enabling a greater understanding and appreciation of the motivations and perspectives of both groups can only be to the benefit of OSM as a mapping platform.

I look forward to updates on this initiative!

Thank you all for your comments. The thread makes fascinating reading for me and I’m glad to have sparked some debate on this issue.

I agree with escada: the more interesting question (and which I’m hoping to address through my research and this survey) is the impact of the gender bias rather than the bias itself. By analysing mapping behaviour by gender, I hope to be able to identify differences in what or how men and women map. The example of supposedly gender specific vending machines highlighted by SeleneYang being a really good example of an impact of the gender bias (although, as imagico says, it is not direct proof of a gender bias in OSM, it could be an indicator). By identifying these impacts the assumed ‘problem’ of the gender bias can be qualified and hopefully addressed so that these voids can be filled and the efficacy of VGI elevated. This is the long view at least.

Hi SimonPoole and thanks for your feedback. With regard to the survey bias towards certain educational systems, as adding options relevant to each country could make the survey incredibly lengthy I have attempted to include alternative systems by including the wording ‘or equivalent’. Knowledge of respondents’ exact educational qualifications is uneccessary so in the absence of this option for non-UK/US educated respondents, an approximation is perfectly acceptable. The same rationale has been applied to offering the survey only in English (at this stage) and of course it will be made clear in any published results to which countries those results are relevant. Surveys such as these have their limitations and it is important to be aware of these.

With regard to the research demonstrating a strong male bias; below is a link to a presentation by Muki Haklay and Nama Budhathoki which presented a 96% male participation bias in OSM in 2010. This bias has been supported by subsequent work on the gender bias in VGI in the last 7-8 years by for example Monica Stephens, but also work by Manuella Schmidt, Sylvia Klettner and Renate Steinmann. I hope this is helpful.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/16461/Horizon%20March%202010%20(Haklay%20and%20Budhahtoki).pdf

Hi Clifford (Glassman)

Not identifying myself at this stage is by no means deliberate or strategic. When the survey is published (hopefully in a couple of weeks) there will be a link to my research page at the University of Nottingham (Nottingham Geospatial Institute) so that anyone interested in the work and being involved in the study can do so on a fully informed basis.

Thank you for your interest and comment.

Zoe

Hi Andy (someoneElse)

Thank you for the info about the pub meet. I know the Poacher and would be very happy to take up the invitation. It will be great to meet some real contributors and learn more about the work you all do in OSM.

Zoe

Thank you imagico for your interests and comments. You raise an interesting point with regard to biases in other forms of non-citizen gathered data. There is a long cultural and historical tradition of bias in traditional maps which have, by some, been posited as ‘cultural constructs’ which represent and reflect the interests of those that have produced them. It is my proposition (as well as that of others) that crowdsourced maps have the potential to reproduce these issues of representation, hence the interest in exploring these issues further.