Workshop report for DISIPRAC: Digital identity security information practices of citizens

I am pleased to share with you the final report from the DISIPRAC workshop held in Edinburgh on 27 February 2020. The workshop was held at Edinburgh Napier University as part of a research project called “DISIPRAC: Workshop report for DISIPRAC: Digital identity security information practices of citizens”. This work was undertaken by myself and my Centre for Social Informatics colleague, Peter Cruickshank.

In the report, we provide a summary of the workshop and provide some evidence of a number of issues around the management of digital identities based on a series of scenarios. We are not making recommendations in the report, although we do hope that the content might inspire others to start thinking about solutions to some of the issues that were raised at the workshop. The report covers:

  • The service user, including issues and risks associated with helping them
  • The role of the helper or “proxy”, including associated challenges and points of conflict, and the role of guidelines and training
  • An overview of the terminology, including identity, issues with the word “proxy”, and the role that trust plays
  • Some implications for systems design

The next steps that Peter and I will take on this project includes academic dissemination in the form of conference papers and posters and the creation of a roadmap for future, related research. We want to use the findings from this to support a larger-scale project on information proxies and real-world online identity management.

We are keen to continue engaging with practitioners and community volunteers, so we would appreciate it if you could help by sharing with us your thoughts and feedback related to the contents of the report and (importantly) the next steps or related future work that you think we should consider.

Download the workshop report:

The full report (.pdf file) can be accessed from the Edinburgh Napier University Repository here or download the file here.

Also available is a template (.docx file) for the scenario worksheets. This can be accessed from the Repository here or you can download the file here.

These documents are provided with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. Please share changes and examples with the original authors, Peter Cruickshank (p.cruickshank@napier.ac.uk) and Frances Ryan (frances@francesryanphd.com).

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with Peter or me if you have any questions or feedback.

Registrations now open for a workshop on the digital identity security information practices of citizens (DISIPRAC)

Registrations are now open closed for a workshop related to how information workers help people to manage their digital identities. The event (27 February 2020) is part of a project called DISIPRAC: Digital identity security information practices of citizens and is being undertaken at the Centre for Social Informatics at Edinburgh Napier University by myself and my colleague, Peter Cruickshank.

Through this work, we are investigating the security information practices associated with digital identity, in particular, the sharing of log-in details and to develop the concept of “social proxies” for managing digital identities.

This workshop (27 February 2020) is best suited for professionals, citizen support and advocacy groups, and other similar stakeholders who work with adults in the community.

Registrations are now closed. View the event page here.

In the hands-on workshop, we will work to understand the issues information workers face when supporting (potentially vulnerable) citizens to better cope with increased levels of security for government systems that are increasingly integral to their every-day lives. We will do this using a set of pre-defined scenarios over the course of the day, based around access to services provided by UK, Scottish and local governments.

When: Thursday, 27 February 2020 (9:30am registration, 4:00pm finish)
Where: Edinburgh Napier University’s Merchiston Campus
Who: Professionals, citizen support and advocacy groups, and other similar stakeholders who work with adults in the community (for example, librarians, digital literacy workers, and computer club volunteers)

Travel bursaries:
We have a small budget for travel assistance for attendees travelling from outside of Edinburgh. If you would like to be considered for a travel bursary, please let us know on your registration form.

Background information:
Over the last decade, most levels of government have been implementing a policy often called “digital by default” or “digital-first” in the name of efficiency and cost savings to prioritise online services such as Universal Credit and myaccount. At the same time, the security of online systems has been increasing, making it more challenging for everyone to actually accessing the services they need. This is bound to impact the information practices of many users. One result might be the temptation to avoid the use of some online systems altogether, but this is often not a practical option. Another could be individuals using risky behaviours with their digital identity, such as sharing passwords, with obvious implications for data protection and privacy. More information can be found here.

Please contact me if you have further questions about the event or the project as a whole.

Published in Information Research: Build, manage, and evaluate: Information practices and personal reputations on social media platforms

My paper, “Build, manage, and evaluate: Information practices and personal reputations on social media platforms”, has been published in Information Research. The paper is co-authored with my PhD supervisors, Professor Hazel HallPeter Cruickshank, and Alistair Lawson and was first presented at the 10th Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) conference in Ljubliana, Slovenia in June 2019.

The research draws from some of the findings from my doctoral investigation on the use of online information in the management of personal reputation and considers a single research question: “How do information behaviours related to personal reputation building, management, and evaluation on social media reflect citation practices related to the building, management, and evaluation of academic reputation?

You can read the full text on the Information Research website here.

ABSTRACT:
Introduction.
 The broad theme of this paper is the use of information to build, manage and evaluate personal reputations. It reports the findings of a study that considered the extent to which social media users replicate in online environments the established information practices of academics when they assess their peers. The three platforms considered are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Method. A multi-step data collection process was implemented for this work. Forty-five UK-based social media users kept journals and took part in semi-structured interviews.
Analysis. A qualitative analysis of the journal and diary data was undertaken using NVivo10. Information practices were analysed to considered the similarities or difference between social media practices and related practices deployed by academics related to citations.
Results. The findings expose the ways in which social media users build, manage, and evaluate personal reputations online may be aligned to the citation practices of academics.
Conclusions. This work shows where the similarities and differences exist between citation practices and related information practices on social media as related to personal reputations. Broadly, the findings of this research demonstrate that social media users do replicate in informal online environments the established information practices of academics.

Below are the slides from my presentation at the CoLIS conference to help visualise the paper a bit. And, as always, please do get in touch if you have any questions about this paper or any of my other research.

A workshop: Helping people to manage their digital identities

I have recently started work on a new research project, titled DISIPRAC: Digital identity security information practices of citizens. The project scope is to investigate the security information practices associated with digital identity, in particular, the sharing of log-in details and to develop the concept of “social proxies” for managing digital identities.

Over the last decade, most levels of government have been implementing a policy often called “digital by default” or “digital-first” in the name of efficiency and cost savings to prioritise online services such as Universal Credit and myaccount. At the same time, the security of online systems has been increasing, making it more challenging for everyone to actually accessing the services they need. This is bound to impact the information practices of many users. One result might be the temptation to avoid the use of some online systems altogether, but this is often not a practical option.  Another could be individuals using risky behaviours with their digital identity, such as sharing passwords, with obvious implications for data protection and privacy.

Some system designers and system owners/managers are aware of the potential impact of this change and are starting to accommodate some users through “assisted digital” services, “alternative journeys” and models of guardianship or delegated identity. However, it is unclear if these capture the range of informal support that happens around social proxy practices and behaviours.

This is where DISIPRAC comes in. This work will be undertaken with Peter Cruickshank, my colleague in the Centre for Social Informatics, and has been funded by a research development grant at Edinburgh Napier University. Peter is the PI on the project (and my former PhD supervisor). He brings more than 10 years’ experience in researching how citizens adopt and learn how to use internet technologies for participation in democratic processes and to engage with government services online. This is complemented by my own research in information behaviour and practices related to online information sharing and use, including my PhD work and my involvement in another Napier project, Social media by proxy: Strategies for managing the online profiles of adults with dementia, and my work at the University of Dundee, TAPESTRY: Trust, Authentication and Privacy over a DeCentralised Social Registry.

At this time, we are conducting a literature review and beginning to plan for a workshop in February that will be used as our primary source of research data. The workshop will be for professionals, citizen support and advocacy groups, and other similar stakeholders. Its aim will be to understand the issues they face when supporting (potentially vulnerable) citizens to better cope with increased levels of security for government systems that are increasingly integral to their every-day lives. We will do this by working through a set of pre-defined scenarios over the course of the day, based around access to services provided by UK, Scottish and local governments.

How can you help? Send us your (anonymised) stories now!
We are compiling a selection of stories and examples for how people support others in relation to their online identities. If you have a story to share, please send them my way. All stories will be anonymised.

Ultimately, this project will address the gaps in current research related to users’ real-world information practices around their digital identity, particularly by citizens and customers in a non-discretionary context.

We are very excited to have a chance to find out more about this highly topical area. We will learn more about the relationship between identity (who we are) and digital identity (how IT systems recognise us), and we recognise that information practitioners in libraries and voluntary organisations are at the front line of the change in public services. This project is a great opportunity to make contacts and hear stories – and hopefully provide the basis for a larger future project.

Stay tuned for more information about the workshop, including how you can get involved. And, as always, please contact me if you have any questions!

[Note: Image by Michael Morrow, sourced on Flickr and used under Creative Commons License.]

Read my thesis!

My PhD thesis, “Reputation management in a digital world: The role of online information in the building, management, and evaluation of personal reputations”, is now available on the Edinburgh Napier University repository.

This work was completed at Edinburgh Napier University under the supervision of Professor Hazel HallAlistair Lawson, and Peter Cruickshank. You can read the full abstract below and you can find research outputs from this work on the publications page of this website.

Download a PDF of the document here:
https://www.napier.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/research-search/outputs/reputation-management-in-a-digital-world-the-role-of-online-information-in-the-building

Please get in touch if you have any questions about my thesis or my current research.

Citation:
Ryan, F. V. C. (2019). Reputation management in a digital world: The role of online information in the building, management, and evaluation of personal reputations. (Doctoral thesis). Edinburgh Napier University. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/Output/2090098

Abstract:

This work is concerned with the role of online information in the building, management, and evaluation of personal reputations. The main contributions of the research relate to: (1) the means by which people evaluate the personal reputations of others from the online evidence available to them, and (2) strategies for the building and management of personal reputations through the use of online information. The findings extend knowledge within the domain of Information Science, notably with respect to the established body of research on human information behaviour and use. They are set against a theoretical framework that is anchored to research in bibliometrics (for example on citation practice and citation analysis), and takes into account the multidisciplinary nature of the field of Information Science.

A multi-step data collection process was implemented following the practice of extant studies in Information Science and human information behaviour and use. This focused on a sample of forty-five UK-based social media users. A qualitative analysis of data collected from participant diaries and interviews was undertaken using NVivo10.

The main contribution of this work with respect to the evaluation of personal reputations on the basis on online evidence is that the information available is largely consumed and evaluated in a passive manner: social media users are more interested in the content of the information that is shared on social media platforms than they are in the signals that this information might convey about the sharer(s). Closer attention is paid in cases where the information shared is in stark contrast to the opinions and practices of those who consume it. In terms of the management of personal reputations through the use of online information, this work introduces and develops new concepts related to managing the “blur” that occurs at the intersection between private and professional lives, and online and offline environments.

Clearing out and moving on(ish)

I cleared out my PhD office at Edinburgh Napier University today. It was a bit of a strange feeling as I know that I will be back in the office a few more times before the end of the year as I finish up a project that I am working on with my colleague, Gemma. But at the same time, I’ve left. I am no longer a PhD student. I am no longer an associate lecturer. I am no longer a regular employee, although I am still listed as associate staff whilst I do some mop-up work. But mop-up work isn’t quite the same, and the paycheques have ceased!

When I left, I did so without fanfare. There were no good-byes. There were no “we’ll miss yous”. There were no leaving drinks; no email to alert people of my change in circumstances. I just… left. And that lack of fanfare left me feeling quite deflated. It left me feeling that my time at Napier was inconsequential; like I am not/was not an integral part of the Napier Machine. (I know that’s not true, really, I do!)

And I am still kind of there. Or at least, I will be around for occasional meetings over the next few months. That means I will still be interacting with folks from my research group, which would make “goodbye” seem silly. Although once my project there is done, I suppose I will just silently fade into the past; I will just be someone that folks “used to know”. (There will be some connections that continue, I hope!)

But, alas, this is another part of my story. I have to leave Napier so that I can go onto the next thing. I have to leave Napier so that I can build my academic career out there in the Big Bad World. Indeed, I have already gone onto the next thing by way of my post-doc in Dundee. And I am actively applying for other posts in the UK and further afield. Oh, and I have applied for a small pot of funding for a small project with one of my Napier colleagues, so my real departure might be delayed a bit longer.

Anyhow… now that I have boxed up my Napier office, I have to start working on putting my home office. That is where I will spend most of my Dundee hours, as I will only commute twice per week. It is also where I will work on applications for other jobs.

Of course, that task will have to wait just a bit. Because I am leaving for my summer holidays to The Homeland tomorrow. Which also means that I don’t have to think about the sadness of clearing out my office and moving on with my life. For now, at least! It also means that I will have to go through all of the contents from my office after my holidays. So I suppose the clear-out isn’t complete quite yet!

The doctor is in: Frances Ryan, PhD

It has been a long time coming, but I am finally a doctor. Oh yes, I am now officially Dr Frances Ryan. The PhD kind of doctor, not the medical kind – just so that there is no doubt.

When I say “a long time coming”, I mean that my PhD Dreams began with my undergraduate degree way, way, way back in 1999. At the time, I had hoped to move directly from my undergraduate work at Central Washington University into a master’s degree followed, hopefully, by a PhD. But after meeting a cute boy during my undergraduate year abroad, I put my postgraduate dreams on hold so that I could get married and do all that lovey-dovey family stuff. (No regrets!)

Later, with the full support and encouragement of my husband, Paul, the plan changed to doing part-time postgraduate studies whilst we raised our family (we were getting ready to adopt from the foster care system). But my beloved Paul died before I was meant to begin my studies, and so I put my dreams on hold so that I could relearn how to breathe. (No, really. When you become a widow, you can forget how to do simple things like breathe, eat, sleep, laugh, and even hope…)

But, eventually, I managed to find the strength to return to school for a master’s degree. And at some point during that degree path, my PhD Dreams were renewed. I was privileged to be offered three different PhD placements and I happily accepted the one at Edinburgh Napier University.

My PhD studies began in November 2013 under the supervision of Professor Hazel Hall (director of studies), Alistair Lawson (second supervisor), and Peter Cruickshank (third supervisor). Whilst the “ideal” PhD journey is about three years, my journey took a bit longer than that. Which isn’t uncommon, but I am a bit disappointed at myself for not finishing sooner. (Some of the delays were out of my control, but I have to acknowledge that some were down to me and my self-confidence – or lack thereof.)

In the end, I submitted my thesis on Halloween (2018) just shy of five years after beginning my studies and my (slightly delayed) viva took place in February 2019. I was quite keen to complete my minor corrections in time for the summer graduations, so handed in my corrections a tad bit early (so not everything about my PhD was delayed). After all, graduating on the 4th of July is a pretty cool thing for an American – especially one who is the daughter of two United States Marines!

And so, finally, here I am: Frances Ryan, PhD. Or Dr Ryan, if you prefer.

Of course, this dream could never have been realised without the encouragement and support of others. So, thank you to all of my family and friends in America, the UK, and in the virtual world for helping to see me through this crazy adventure!

I am not certain where life will take me next. Ideally, I will be able to remain in Scotland working as an academic for the foreseeable future. But I am a realist (begrudgingly so) and I know that I will have to be open to opportunities wherever they might be. (If you know of a job opportunity I should consider, please get in touch!)

And now that I have accomplished this great dream of mine, I suppose I should start thinking about the Next Big Thing. After all, having a big goal to focus on is what keeps me going!

You can watch the ceremony on YouTube below. I enter the stage about 6 minutes in, so no need to watch the entire 90-minute show!

Build, manage, and evaluate: Information practices and personal reputations on social media platforms || #CoLIS10

I am in Ljubljana, Slovenia this week to attend the 10th Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) conference, where I will be presenting a paper related to some of my PhD research.

The paper is titled “Build, manage, and evaluate: Information practices and personal reputations on social media platforms” and is co-authored with Professor Hazel Hall, Peter Cruickshank, and Alistair Lawson. The research draws from some of the findings from my doctoral investigation on the use of online information in the management of personal reputation and considers a single research question: “How do information behaviours related to personal reputation building, management, and evaluation on social media reflect citation practices related to the building, management, and evaluation of academic reputation?”

ABSTRACT:
Introduction.
The broad theme of this paper is the use of information to build, manage and evaluate personal reputations. It reports the findings of a study that considered the extent to which social media users replicate in online environments the established information practices of academics when they assess their peers. The three platforms considered are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Method. A multi-step data collection process was implemented for this work. Forty-five UK-based social media users kept journals and took part in semi-structured interviews.
Analysis. A qualitative analysis of the journal and diary data was undertaken using NVivo10. Information practices were analysed to consider the similarities or difference between social media practices and related practices deployed by academics related to citations.
Results. The findings expose the ways in which social media users build, manage, and evaluate personal reputations online may be aligned with the citation practices of academics.
Conclusion.
This work shows where the similarities and differences exist between citation practices and related information practices on social media as related to personal reputations. Broadly, the findings of this research demonstrate that social media users do replicate in informal online environments the established information practices of academics.

I will be presenting on Wednesday, 19 June during the “Information Management” session (13.00-14.00; Room 4).

Not attending the conference? Don’t worry! The presentation slides below will allow you to engage with my presentation from afar.

If you have any questions about this research, my doctoral work as a whole, or about potential collaborations, please contact me.

If you wish to interact in real-time, you can ask me questions on Twitter (@FrancesRyanPhD) or follow along with the conference using the hashtag #CoLIS10.

Passed, with minor corrections

I am very pleased and extremely relieved to be able to (finally!) announce that I have passed my PhD viva – and with only minor corrections! This good news comes after more than five years of hard work and emotional turmoil, and I am just so thankful that my PhD Dreams are almost a reality.

The preamble:

I submitted my PhD thesis at the end of October. At the time, I had hoped that my viva (oral examination/defence) would be just before Christmas. However, there was a slight glitch that meant everything was delayed. But the outcome is such that I will still make the July graduation ceremony, so it all worked out in the end!

Because of the delay, I mostly ignored my thesis for nearly three months after submission. (Part of that was due to a post-submission illness.) It wasn’t really until the start of February that I started to really prepare for The Big Day, as blogged about here.

On the day of my viva, I woke up at 5am (after a slightly disrupted sleep). I showered, put on a suitable dress for the occasion, and painted my nails. I arrived at my office just before 8am and unpacked my bag, then I headed down to the canteen for a full breakfast (with extra bacon!). Then, I waited nervously for my 10.30am start time.

My thesis was examined by Sheila Webber, Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield iSchool (external examiner) and Dr Laura Muir, Associate Professor at the Edinburgh Napier University School of Computing (internal examiner). My Panel Chair (viva moderator) was Professor Ben Paechter, Director of Research in the School of Computing.

My Director of Studies, Professor Hazel Hall, also joined me at the viva to take notes. She sat behind me so that I would not be tempted to look towards her for input, but also so that any facial expressions she might have made didn’t throw me off.

I went into the room prepared with my trusty water bottle (my medication makes this a necessity!), two pens, several sheets of blank paper for notes, a handkerchief (in case of tears), and my thesis. I also brought with me a tummy full of butterflies and a mixture of fear, excitement, worry, and hope.

The gritty details:

At the start of the viva, the plan for the examination was explained. The plan was to go through my thesis chapter-by-chapter, with questions alternating between the examiners (for the most part). As the questions were lobbed at me, I found myself examining the motivations behind them. Is this a question about clarifying a confusing sentence? Is it because they were trying to tease out the finer details about my methods? Is the question meant to challenge something that the examiners held different views about? Or is it because they want to see how (clearly) I can defend my position?

Some questions were easy for me to understand (assume) these motivations. Especially when in the process of answering it was clear that my response was “the right” response. But the motivation of others was a little harder to pin down, especially when it because clear(ish) that the examiners were coming at the thesis from a different perspective to my own.

Throughout the process, I found myself gauging how well the viva was going. I felt that I was heading towards a “pass, with corrections” but I couldn’t quite pin down if that would be minor corrections or major corrections.

It all felt quite positive and I felt (mostly) confident when answering questions and defending my work. I even felt that I stayed (mostly) on point and didn’t go off into a rambling tangent, something that I sometimes do when I am nervous.

And then I was blindsided by a bus! One of the examiners started down a path of inquiry that I was absolutely unprepared for. There was a back-and-forth that lasted what felt like about 5 minutes at the end of the viva that made my heart sink into the pit of my stomach. From that point on, I was no longer able to control my fragile emotional state and the tears started to fall (good thing I had that hankie, right?). I was certain that this was the thing that was going to take me from a pass with corrections to a resubmit (with or without a new viva). It was a horrible feeling and was, by far, the worst moment of my viva.

[Note: This isn’t to say that I think the questions were unfair or unwarranted. The examiners were fair, kind, and encouraging throughout the entire experience.]

At the end of that line of questioning, there was a very short (1-2 minutes) wrap-up chat where I was asked if there was anything I would like to add about my thesis as a whole. This was my opportunity to give my work a final sales pitch. But by that time, I was too emotional and felt too defeated to say anything more.

With that, I was asked to leave (along with my Director of Studies) so that the examiners could chat with the moderator to confirm the outcome. During that time, I sat in Hazel’s office, unable to stop the tears because I was certain I would be resubmitting my work based on the “bus” questions. Hazel, however, felt that I was still in the passing lane. She walked me through some of the (many, and high quality!) notes that she took during the viva and shared her own interpretation of the outcome. That helped to dry my tears a bit, although I wasn’t as convinced as she was.

The wait in Hazel’s office felt quite short. It might have been about 10 minutes – 15 at the very most. We were then invited back to the examination room by the chair. I was feeling a little more positive by that time (thanks, Hazel!) but I was still quite sure it wouldn’t be the result I was hoping for.

However, when I walked in the room I was greeted with smiles, a “congratulations”, and the words “passed, with minor corrections”. I was extremely surprised at that outcome, given the bus that had knocked me over just a few minutes earlier. But a short conversation followed about the “bus” incident and it was made clearer to me what the examiner was hoping for from that specific line of questioning.

The conversation to follow was about the general next steps in the process. The first of these steps is that the examiners will write a formal letter outlining the corrections that need to be made. That letter will be sent to the research office at my university before a copy is sent to me. It is at that time that my official corrections time will begin.

With minor corrections, I will have two months to complete the changes before sending an electronic version of the amended thesis on for my examiners to sign off on. After that, I will have my final thesis bound for submission before graduation – which should be in July, barring any hiccups along the way. My Panel Chair reassured me that we could revisit my current non-PhD workload to ensure that I have time to make my corrections. (Although I don’t think that there should be an issue, I felt very supported to have been told this help is available.)

Once the viva was officially over, I was invited out to lunch with my examiners and Hazel. We enjoyed a wee toast with some lovely prosecco followed by a nice conversation about a wide range of topics not related to my PhD. (Which was nice!) After lunch, I made my way home as I was completely exhausted.

The personal reflection:

In a nutshell, my viva was not a fun experience. I know that isn’t what people want to hear, but for me, that is the truth. Although, I do acknowledge that my reflections might have been more positive without the aforementioned “bus” incident! (Also, it wasn’t a completely horrible experience.)

In the lead-up to the Big Day, I knew that my viva might be an emotional and exhausting experience. Like many of life’s big moments, I had invested my heart and soul into this. Thankfully, I know myself well enough that I knew I would be shattered from the experience. And that means that I didn’t make any plans to celebrate the day.

And I was right! The experience was so draining that I couldn’t truly be happy on the day. In fact, when I got home, I donned my pyjamas and cried a bit. I then had another glass of prosecco and called my parents to share the good news with them. Then I shared the news on Facebook (Twitter was saved until the following morning). That was the limit to my celebrations. (But not the limit to my tears!)

The following day I returned to the office and politely thanked everyone who congratulated me. But I still couldn’t celebrate because I was still too dazed from the experience. And now, three days later, I am still a bit “meh” about it all.

Maybe these feelings of apathy are because I know that there is still much work to be done before I graduate. Or maybe they’re because I am too busy worrying about what my next steps will be after graduation (there are so many questions about jobs, post-docs, and locations!). Of course, maybe these feelings are simply a bit of exhaustion.

But, ultimately, I have passed my PhD (subject to minor corrections) and that does make me happy – even if I can’t quite celebrate that happiness just yet.

Thank you, again, to all of my lovely cheerleaders who’ve encouraged me along the way. My PhD Dreams aren’t over quite realised yet, but they are almost a reality!

PhD studentship applications at Napier: Apply today

There are currently two fully-funded PhD places advertised within the Centre for Social Informatics at Edinburgh Napier University. The studentships, which start in October 2019, are Skills Development Scotland Collaborative awards offered through the Scottish Graduate School of Social Science (SGSSS).

Key dates:
** Applications are due by Friday 22nd March 2019.
** Interviews are scheduled for Thursday 11th April 2019.
** The start date for successful candidates is Tuesday 1st October 2019.

The first of these studentships is for a doctoral study investigating work-based learning and industry performance and the second investigates career information literacy and the decision-making of young people.

If you are interested in these studentships, you can find the full details of each project, including eligibility criteria and the application process, on the current studentship opportunities page of the SGSSS website or by following the links below.

If you are interested in these studentships, you can find the full details of each project, including eligibility criteria and the application process, on the current studentship opportunities page of the SGSSS website or by following the links below.

Opportunity 1:
Work-based learning environments for fostering industry-relevant skills and optimal economic performance, supervised by Dr Laura Muir and Dr Colin Smith.

Opportunity 2:
Career information literacy and decision-making behaviours of young people, supervised by Professor Hazel Hall and Dr Pete Robertson.

The successful applicants will be admitted to the PhD programme at Edinburgh Napier University. Lyndsey Middleton, who is currently writing up her ESRC-SDS funded PhD study within the Centre for Social Informatics, has also blogged about these opportunities and her personal experiences doing a PhD in the CSI. You can read her post here: Come and study in the wonderful Centre for Social Informatics of Edinburgh Napier University! You can also read about our most recent PhD graduate Dr John Mowbray, who completed his ESRC-SDS study last year. You can also have a read through my own blog here to learn more about my own PhD experiences here at Napier (or feel free to contact me privately with any questions about student life here in the Centre for Social Informatics).

For further information about these advertised PhD opportunities at the Centre for Social Informatics, please contact Dr Laura Muir (L.Muir@napier.ac.uk) or Professor Hazel Hall (h.hall@napier.ac.uk).