The SMC needs a new full-time Research Assistant. Accepting Applications NOW (to start late-July 2021)

The Microsoft Research Social Media Collective, based in the Cambridge, MA lab location, consists of Nancy Baym, Tarleton Gillespie, and Mary L. Gray, as well as postdoctoral researchers, faculty visitors, and Ph.D. interns affiliated with MSR New England. We are looking for a full-time Research Assistant who will take over from the current RA and work directly with Nancy Baym, Tarleton Gillespie, and Mary L. Gray.

An appropriate candidate will be a self-starter who is passionate and knowledgeable about the social and cultural implications of technology. Strong skills in writing, organization and academic research are essential, as are time-management and multi-tasking. Minimal qualifications are a BA or equivalent degree in a humanities or social science discipline and some qualitative research training. A Masters degree is preferred but we also consider candidates with Bachelor’s degrees and substantial relevant research experience.

Job responsibilities may include:

– Sourcing and curating relevant literature and research materials
– Developing literature reviews and/or creating and managing annotated bibliographies
– Coding ethnographic and interview data
– Copyediting manuscripts
– Working with academic journals on themed sections
– Assisting with research project data management and event organization

The RA will also have opportunities to collaborate on ongoing projects. While publication is not a guarantee, the RA may have the opportunity to co-author papers while at MSR. This full-time position will be adopting Microsoft’s Hybrid Work policies, where employees can now work from home up to 50 percent of the time. It is a 12-month position with a possible option for an extension. The position pays hourly with flexible daytime hours. The start date will ideally be on or soon before July 23, although flexibility may be possible for the right candidate.

This position is perfect for emerging scholars planning to apply to PhD programs in Communication, Media Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, Information Studies, History, Philosophy, STS and Critical Data Studies, and related fields who want to develop their research skills and area expertise before entering a graduate program. Current New England-based MA/PhD students are welcome to apply provided they can commit to 40 hours of work per week.

To apply, please send an email to Mary ( with the subject “RA Application” and include the following attachments:

– One-page (single-spaced) personal statement, including a description of research experience and training, interests, and professional goals
– CV or resume
– Writing sample (preferably a literature review or a scholarly-styled article)
– Links to public online presence (e.g., blog, homepage, Twitter, journalistic endeavors, etc.)
– The names and email addresses of two recommenders

Be sure to include your last name in file names of all documents you attach.

We will begin reviewing applications on June 1. We hope to make a hiring decision no later than June 30.

We regret that because this is a time-limited contract position, we can only consider candidates who are already legally authorized to work in the United States.

Please feel free to ask questions about the position in the blog comments.

New book excerpt: The Gentrification of the Internet

Hi SMC friends! Just a quick post to announce a new book, out this month from UC Press. In researching craigslist for an earlier project, I started thinking about changing digital culture as a form of gentrification. With this book, I wanted to think in more depth about how the internet is gentrifying, with the hope of writing for a general readership. Here’s a quick video (courtesy of the awesome comms team at Annenberg) and here’s an excerpt from the intro (courtesy of UC Press). I’m grateful to the support I’ve had from many SMC folx on the way to writing this book!

2021 Arrivals to the SMC!

UPDATE: One more to add!

Muira McCammon is a PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication and holds a Master in Law from Penn Law. She studies how information flows through the U.S. administrative state, and her dissertation examines government deletion practices on Twitter. She has published on this work in New Media & Society and Information, Communication, & Society. At Microsoft Research, Muira will work with danah boyd on questions related to transparency, government speech, and public-sector data infrastructures.

While we can’t welcome them in person, given the circumstances of the world, we’re truly fortunate to have even more than our usual share arriving remotely, for postdoc and intern positions at the Social Media Collective. Please join me in welcoming them!

Photo of Karina Rider

Karina Rider is our incoming SMC postdoc for 2021-2023! Karina is finishing her PhD in the Department of Sociology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. Her dissertation is an ethnographic study of civic technology volunteering in the San Francisco Bay Area, and explores the relationship between “tech for good” initiatives, network capitalism, and municipal governments. She has an MA in Sociology from the University of Washington and a BA in Sociology from San José State University. Her next project is a comparative study of how local, grassroots organizations mobilize in order to resist efforts by technology companies to build large corporate campuses in different cities around the world.

Photo of Andrea Alarcon

Andrea Alarcón is joining Microsoft Research New England as an intern, working with Mary Gray and the Social Media Collective, to examine transnational labor flows and the digital economy. Andrea is particularly interested in studying the appropriation of social media platforms as gateways to the web, and transnational, online labor cultures. Before becoming a PhD candidate at USC Annenberg, Andrea received her MSc degree from the Oxford Internet Institute, and her BSc in online journalism from the University of Florida. She also worked as a Research Assistant with Microsoft Research’s Social Media Collective. Before academia, she worked as a web producer and editor for the World Bank, and in social media for Discovery Channel in Latin America.

Photo of Benjamin Ale-Ebrahim

Benjamin Ale-Ebrahim is joining Microsoft Research New England as a joint MSR / E+D JEM Project Intern, working with Mary Gray and the Social Media Collective studying gender identity and pronoun use in the workplace. His dissertation research explores the relationship between social media platform policies and the development of LGBTQ+ social movements in the Middle East and North Africa. He will be working remotely over the summer while he completes his doctoral dissertation in sociocultural anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington.

Photo of Kristen Bowen

Kristen Bowen is a PhD candidate in Information Science at UNC-Chapel Hill, and has just begun her internship working with Nancy Baym and the SMC. Her research centers the online information behavior of marginalized populations (particularly individuals with nonapparent disabilities and/or members of minoritized racial groups). The primary goal is to determine the ways social media & technology support or act as barriers to the health and wellbeing of these populations. Her dissertation research examines Black emerging adults’ (18-25) information exchange experiences on their mental wellbeing regarding experienced sexual violence. This summer, Kristen is exploring the influence of remote work on the wellbeing of Black adults, inclusive of individuals with disabilities.

Photo of Tristan Gohring

Tristan Gohring is a PhD candidate in Informatics at Indiana University. They are returning to Microsoft Research New England as a joint MSR / E+D JEM Project Intern, working with Mary Gray and the Social Media Collective studying gender identity and pronoun use in the workplace. Their doctorial research sits at the intersecting fields of science and technology studies, social informatics, and gender studies. Their primary research is about gender as a classification system, and how gender classification gets used and embedded in technologies, such as identification documents and online forms and profile pages.

Photo of Calvin Liang

Calvin Liang will join Microsoft Research New England as a Research Intern working with Mary Gray in the Social Media Collective on the Pandemic Response Network Project. He is a third year PhD Student in the Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering at the University of Washington. His research explores the intersections of queerness, health, and technology by examining how to design technological interventions that support LGBTQ+ people with their health and challenge normative values and practices in health more broadly.

Photo of Katherine Lou

Katherine Lou will join Microsoft Research New England as a Research Intern working with Mary Gray in the Social Media Collective on the Pandemic Response Network Project. She’s currently finishing her last semester at Harvard University, where she’s studying sociology and computer science. Her work lies at the intersection of technology and the social sciences, to build tech that enables meaningful human connections.

Rida Qadri is joining Microsoft Research New England as an intern with Mary Gray and the SMC to work on questions about the future of digital work in the Global South. She is currently a PhD candidate in Urban Information Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her research seeks to uncover the myriad ways in which human labor and informal relationships sustain digital technologies, particularly in non-western contexts. By exploring the limited efficiencies of algorithmic mediation within the Global South, she hopes to contribute to more inclusive technological artifacts. Her dissertation examines the social relationships and strategies of resistance crafted by Jakarta’s platform motorbike-taxi drivers as they labor in the city’s app-mediated mobility market.

Kate Sim has already arrived, and is in the midst of her spring internship working with Tarleton Gillespie and the SMC. She is a PhD Candidate at the Oxford Internet Institute interested in questions of gender, violence, power, and digital media. Her dissertation examines the ethical, cultural, and legal implications of data-driven reporting systems used for campus safety in US higher education. At the SMC, she is exploring how platform companies figure ideas of harm and care in their content moderation and the mechanisms for user contact and complaint. 

Ihudiya Finda Williams is a PhD candidate and Rackham Merit Fellow at the University of Michigan School of Information. Her research occurs at the intersection of race, class, and technology. Her dissertation focuses on understanding and developing tools and resources with and for returning citizens (formerly incarcerated individuals), specifically to enhance digital literacy for job search. At the Social Media Collective, Ihudiya will be exploring the online meeting experiences of African Americans in various work settings. She holds a M.Ed in Technology, Innovation, and Education from Harvard University, and a BS in Information Technology from Rochester Institute of Technology. Ihudiya publishes under her pen name, Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu. 

The fragmentation of (digital) well-being

The potential well-being costs of the pandemic are many and harsh. Financial well-being is said to be at risk due to shrinking employment opportunities; physical well-being due to stay-at-home orders; social well-being due to limited interactions with loved ones; digital well-being due to increased reliance on remote communication. The list goes on. Dividing up the various layers of well-being in this way is useful for analytical purposes. Chiefly, it grants a specificity crucial for the study of flourishing and for the treatment of suffering. Yet well-being is more than the sum of its parts.

Well-being is a normative concept. Determining what counts as living well, and for whom, positions individuals within a matrix of cultural evaluation tied to a particular time and place. Well-being is also fundamentally relational, situated, and unevenly experienced. It involves complex bio-psychological mechanisms interacting with the lived environment[1]. The process of atomising well-being into discrete categories thus obscures as well as reveals.

Historian Klaus Bergoldt shows how Western visions of well-being as good personal hygiene, routine, and self-control can be traced back to the Greco-Roman idea of dietetics – the art of balanced living[2]. Enjoy exercise, but not to the point of exhaustion; thought – but not to idleness; and sexual pleasure – but in moderation. For the Greeks and Romans, such doctrines of living well were the reserve of the intellectual and political elite – the suggestion being that those with labour intensive workloads did not have the time to worry about, or, indeed, capacity to control their passions.

While current accounts of living well purport to be for all, well-being inescapably remains value-laden and locally interpretable.[3] What, then, of the contemporary fragmentation of well-being? What worldviews are revealed by splitting well-being into separate categories? Let us consider one of the more recent shards – digital well-being.

Technical self-control

We are frequently faced with the need to manage our screen time, control our interactions with social media, and take technological time-outs for the sake of our own health. “Too much” technology, we are warned, leads to several negative psychological consequences. Unproductive distraction sits at on one end of the scale, serious mental health issues, such as increased propensities toward anxiety, depression, and self-harm, at the other.

After widespread public criticisms, and after many years of inaction, technology companies now provide digital well-being ‘tools’ built into their products as standard. Activity trackers can measure time spent on smartphones, social media users can mute push notifications, and technical controls can disable applications for set periods of time. NGOs and charities offer practical guidelines for parents and children to live well in digital spaces, governmental advisors offer digital well-being practices for citizens, and a burgeoning self-help literature promises readers the chance to wrest back control of their digital health through subtle changes in lifestyle[4].

Collectively, the advice surrounding digital well-being, whether expressed in corporate PR materials, community guidelines, governmental white papers, or on user dashboards, functions as part of a technically embedded discourse of self-control. Despite harbouring different motivations for cultivating “healthier” engagements with technology (some more critical than others), what users can and should do to protect personal digital well-being is clearly spelled out. Rather than engage passively with technology, users should be conscious, productive, and involved. Be more mindful, be less reactive.

However, in positioning individual user habits as the key target of change, current discourses surrounding digital well-being position individual users as the key target of critique. Accordingly, relative experiences of well-being in digital contexts become explicable in terms of personal success or failure. The “healthy” user understands these normative well-being guidelines and acts appropriately. The “unhealthy” one does not.

Well-being as a political pressure point

The burdening of individual users functions as part of an apparatus of neoliberal responsibilization. Here, individuals (as opposed to families, communities, or the state) assume full responsibility for self-care.[5] Well-being, the argument goes, is an outcome of individual agents making good choices in an equal field of social opportunity.

Yet this is an empty promise. Feelings of well-being are not solely attributable to “good” decision-making. For example, scholars have linked the rising and disparate rates of mental health issues in the West to rising economic inequalities, entrenched racial discrimination, and issues surrounding gender and class[6]. Furthermore, researchers working with the social determinants of health framework have highlighted how structural factors, such as access to public services, employment, and housing, impact subjective experiences of well-being.

What is important to recognize here is that compartmentalizing well-being as an individual accomplishment, or failure, makes it very difficult to consider these social, political, and economic inequalities as part of a holistic set of health relations. As a consequence of adopting an individualized view of well-being, the imperative to ameliorate such inequalities in our proposed treatments of human anguish is lost.

Although useful for analytical specificity, atomising well-being in this way is therefore also a missed political opportunity. In the case of digital well-being in particular, it becomes increasingly hard to link the uneven well-being costs of digital (dis)connection to the uneven psychic costs of the so-called attention economy and the related systemic failures of neoliberal capitalism. Who is it serving to distinguish between health “online” and health “offline” so rigidly? What becomes visible? What goes unchecked?

Ultimately, where one locates the correlates of well-being determines appropriate modes of intervention. If we are to better understand how technological mediation implicates diverse experiences of human flourishing and suffering, it could be worth situating the “digital” aspects of well-being more concretely within its relational, deeply political, historical whole.

[1] ‌Atkinson, S., Bagnall, A.-M., Corcoran, R., South, J., & Curtis, S. (2020). Being Well Together: Individual Subjective and Community Wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1903–1921; Rose, N., Birk, R., & Manning, N. (2021). Towards Neuroecosociality: Mental Health in Adversity. Theory, Culture & Society.

[2] Bergoldt, K. (2008). Well-being: A Cultural History of Healthy Living. Cambridge: Polity

[3] What one does with this interpretation is a critical (political) decision. I like Foucault’s commitment to “effective history” and the “cutting” of knowledge: “Effective history deprives the self of the reassuring stability of life and nature, and it will not permit itself to be transported by a voiceless obstinacy toward a millennial ending. It will uproot its traditional foundations and relentlessly disrupt its pretended continuity. This is because knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting’. Foucault, M. (1984). ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, in: Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. p. 154.

[4] Eyal, N. (2020). Indistractable. London: Bloomsbury.

[5] Brown, W. (2005). Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; Sointu, E. (2005). The Rise of an Ideal: Tracing Changing Discourses of Wellbeing. The Sociological Review, 53(2), 255–274.

[6] Brown, B. J. & Baker, S. (2013). Responsible Citizens: Individuals, Health and Policy under Neoliberalism. London: Anthem Press; Fisher, M. (2019). A theory of public well-being. BMC Public Health, 19(1283); Yearby, R. (2020). Structural Racism and Health Disparities:  Reconfiguring the Social Determinants of Health Framework to Include the Root Cause. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48(3),518-526.

Digital Time/Power Symposium, April 12 2021

Join panelists Taina Bucher (University of Oslo), Brian Jefferson (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), and Niall Docherty (Microsoft Research) to discuss digital temporalities as they intersect with apparatuses of power and knowledge.

Monday April 12th — 9am CDT/3pm BST/4pm CEST — Online

Hosted by the Social Media Collective

Each speaker will give a ten-minute presentation, followed by interactive break-out rooms and a participatory discussion. The event will be held virtually and is scheduled to last 90 minutes. The event is free and open to the public. Please visit the Eventbrite page to register to attend, and receive a Teams link:

Digital Time/Power Symposium: tickets, Mon 12 Apr 2021 at 15:00 | Eventbrite

Event Description

This is an interactive event, with discussions in the breakout rooms providing the grounds for a collective conversation surrounding digital time/power to emerge. The talks will invite dialogue amongst participants by questioning the way temporality is targeted, discursively produced, and materially managed in distinct sociotechnical environments.

Taina Bucher will examine the specific temporal regime of algorithmic media as characterized by a logic of right-time, or kairos. Bucher is an associate professor in media and communication at the University of Oslo.

How do media platforms determine when the time is right, with what implications? Where does right-time materialize in digital media and could we address the empirical realities of this fabrication?

Brian Jefferson will discuss how the digital revolution has both accelerated geographic development and underdevelopment. Brian is an associate professor of geography and geographic information systems at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.

In what ways has the digital revolution upended and reproduced established inequalities? What does this tell us of technological progress?  

Niall Docherty will explore how tools of digital well-being promise a certain future of human flourishing inflected by neoliberal discourses of responsibilization and self-control. Niall is a postdoctoral researcher at Microsoft Research New England, within the Social Media Collective.

What are the political, economic, and social futures promised to users through adopting “healthy” digital habits? How do narratives of the good life condition action online?

In collectively examining these types of questions and more, the symposium will cultivate an interdisciplinary discussion able to explore varied experiences of digital temporality and power. This will be a great chance to meet with other critical digital theorists and share ideas with the broader research community.

We look forward to your participation!

Update on the MSR SMC PhD Internship, Cycle 2021


That’s a wrap! The 2021 application process is NOW CLOSED. Contact Mary (details below) if you have any problems.

On letters of reference: Requests for letters have been sent (automatically, from the submissions portal). Applicants: Your application is considered complete, as long as we have the 6 items listed in the call (the things that you can control). No need to pester your letter writers (let us do that for you)!!! We will reach out to them if we do not have their letters for our reviews. 

On location, location, location: Participation in the MSR Research Internship Program requires that students are physically located in the United States or Canada for the duration of the internship. PLEASE check out the Microsoft Careers Site for all updates!

Internship Opportunity: (Dis)Trust in Public-Sector Data Infrastructures

The Social Media Collective in the New England Lab has multiple internships for PhD students. See here for more information. This call relates to a NYC Lab internship opportunity so it is separate, but related. This opportunity is more narrowed in scope. Candidates are welcome to apply to both opportunities.

Application Link:

Deadline: December 23, 2020

Microsoft Research NYC is looking for an advanced PhD student to conduct an original research project on a topic under the rubric of “(dis)trust in public-sector data infrastructures.” MSR internships provide PhD students with an opportunity to work on an independent research project that advances their intellectual development while collaborating with a multi-disciplinary group of scholars. Interns typically relish the networks that they build through this program. This internship will be mentored by danah boyd; the intern will be part of both the NYC lab’s cohort and a member of the Social Media Collective. Applicants for this internship should be interested in conducting original research related to how trust in public-sector data infrastructures is formed and/or destroyed. 

Substantive Context: In the United States, federal data infrastructures are under attack. Political interference has threatened the legitimacy of federal agencies and the data infrastructures they protect. Climate science relies on data collected by NOAA, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of Agriculture. Yet, anti-science political rhetoric has restricted funding, undermined hiring, and pushed for the erasure of critical sources of data. And then there was Sharpie-gate. In the midst of a pandemic, policymakers in government and leaders in industry need to trust public health data to make informed decisions. Yet, the CDC has faced such severe attacks on its data infrastructure and organization that non-governmental groups have formed to create shadow sources of data. The census is democracy’s data infrastructure, yet it too has been plagued by political interference.

Data has long been a source of political power and state legitimacy, as well as a tool to argue for specific policies and defend core values. Yet, the history of public-sector data infrastructures is fraught, in no small part because state data has long been used to oppress, colonize, and control. Numbers have politics and politics has numbers.  Anti-colonial and anti-racist movements have long challenged what data the state collects, about whom, and for what purposes. Decades of public policy debates about privacy and power have shaped public-sector data infrastructures. Amidst these efforts to ensure that data is used to ensure equity — and not abuse — there have been a range of adversarial forces who have invested in polluting data for political, financial, or ideological purposes. 

The legitimacy of public-sector data infrastructures is socially constructed. It is not driven by either the quality or quantity of data, but how the data — and the institution that uses its credibility to guarantee the data —  is perceived. When data are manipulated or political interests contort the appearance of data, data infrastructures are at risk. As with any type of infrastructure, data infrastructures must be maintained as sociotechnical systems. Data infrastructures are rendered visible when they break, but the cracks in the system should be negotiated long before the system has collapsed.


This internship is designed for someone whose project interfaces with these conversations, someone who wants to examine what “trust in numbers” looks like in the contemporary American context. The project might focus on a particular government agency, or compare across agencies. The project might look at how policymakers seek to make sense of and repair our crumbling data infrastructure — or how politicians seek to use the tools at their disposal to aid and abet the dismantlement of data infrastructures. Or perhaps the project is a historical examination of how data infrastructures came to be structured the way they are. Most likely, the project is something that the MSR team has not yet considered.

A successful internship project will shed new light on (dis)trust in public-sector data infrastructures, offering both an empirical and theoretical intervention. Preference will be given to projects that involve new data collection, projects that recognize that race and inequity are intertwined with state data infrastructures, and projects that go beyond critique to grapple with normative challenges about upholding public-sector data infrastructures. 


The application for this PhD internship opportunity can be found here:

Applicants must: 

  1. Be currently enrolled in a PhD program in a social scientific field (including, but not limited to: Sociology, Communications, Media Studies, Political Science, Anthropology, History, American Studies, etc.)
  2. Have completed, or on target to complete coursework by June 2021

Preference will be given to candidates who:

  1. Have experience conducting independent research using qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, archival research, ethnographic fieldwork, etc.)
  2. Have written publication-ready research papers
  3. Can demonstrate a track record of research collaboration
  4. Can articulate a project proposal that accounts for / centers equity and justice in their proposed analysis

Applicants from historically marginalized communities, underrepresented in higher education, and students from universities outside of the United States are encouraged to apply. (**)

When applying for this job, you will have the opportunity to upload information. Your application should include: 

  1. Your CV
  2. A brief (no more than 1 page) description of your dissertation project.
  3. A short (2-3 pages) project proposal. 
  4. A cover sheet that describes your interest in this internship and your relevant experience.
  5. Names of three references who, upon contact, will be able to return reference letters in a timely manner. 
  6. An academic article-length manuscript (~7,000 or more) that you have authored or co-authored (published or unpublished) that demonstrates your writing skills. 

Your project proposal should describe a potential project that you would like to conduct that fits the scope of this call. The purpose of this project proposal is to articulate how you would think about investigating (dis)trust in public-sector data infrastructures, what questions might drive your inquiry, how you would methodologically pursue your questions, what fieldsite and/or data might be most fruitful for such an analysis. Your proposal should account for method and theory, and be attentive to the realistic challenges of accessing relevant data. Your proposal should also reveal why you are qualified to do this work by highlighting your experience.  Please note: The purpose of the proposal is to demonstrate your theoretical and analytical interests, ability to scope a project, and understanding of the data needed to do the work. The successful intern will work with their mentor during the internship to finalize a proposal before beginning data collection or analysis.

If you have any questions about the application process, please contact danah boyd at and include “MSR Internship” in the subject line.


We will begin reviewing applications for this position on December 23, 2020. (Note: SMC Internship applications are due in January.) 

The standard MSR internship takes place during the summer, but internships may begin any time from February-June 2021. In your cover letter, please indicate your ideal start date. 

** UPDATE (11/20):

On November 20, we were informed that 2021 internships will be conducted remotely, not in-person. Furthermore, to our chagrin, we were told that “international internships cannot be supported due to the many complexities around tax/payroll, export licensing, work authorization, etc.” Unfortunately, this means that 2021 interns must be both physically located in the United States and eligible to work in the US. Unfortunately, we (the hiring managers) have no power to alter these rules. 😦

book launch: Sarah Brayne, Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing

The SMC loves good books. And we especially love books that tackle vital societal problems in a way that’s timely but also deeply researched, that ask biting questions of institutions without turning them into straw men, that investigate technology in its real use contexts, and that complicate things that may at first appear simple. And we REALLY like books from our excellent SMC postdocs, especially when we were there to see these books become books. Latest in this illustrious group is Sarah Brayne, now an assistant professor in Sociology at UT Austin, and her book Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing, from Oxford UP. The book offers an ethnographic “account of how a massive law enforcement agency leverages big data technologies to expand surveillance in the name of objective, predictive policing.”

Sarah is having a virtual book launch, in conversation with Bruce Western of Columbia University, that we highly recommend. November 20, 2pm CST. You can RSVP here, and in the process, receive a 30% discount code for the book.

SMC is looking for a postdoc. Apply now!


The Social Media Collective at Microsoft Research New England (MSRNE) is looking for a two-year social media postdoctoral researcher. This position is an ideal opportunity for a scholar whose work draws on communication, media studies, anthropology, sociology, and/or science & technology studies to bring empirical and critical perspectives to bear on complex socio-technical issues. We also consider applications from candidates that might bridge SMC with one or more areas of the MSRNE lab, including machine learning and statistics, economics and computational economics, theoretical mathematics, and computational biology.

Postdoctoral researchers receive a competitive salary and benefits package, and are eligible for relocation expenses. Postdoctoral researchers are hired for a two-year term appointment following the academic calendar, starting in July 2021. The position is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Social Media Collective is comprised of full-time researchers, postdocs, visiting faculty, Ph.D. interns, and research assistants. Current projects in New England include:

– How do people build social capital with each other in remote and hybrid work, and how do those processes facilitate or harm inclusion? (Nancy Baym)

– How do social media platforms, through algorithmic design and content policies, serve as custodians of public discourse? (Tarleton Gillespie)

– What are the cultural, political, and ethical implications of on-demand platform economies as new forms and sites of semi-automated, globally-distributed digital labor? (Mary L. Gray)

– how do discourses and designs of ideal social media habits function within apparatuses of platform capitalism? (Niall Docherty)

SMC postdocs may also have the opportunity to visit and collaborate with researchers in our sister labs in New York City and Montreal.

Microsoft Research provides a vibrant multidisciplinary research environment, with an open publication policy and close links to top academic institutions around the world. The postdoctoral research positions offer emerging scholars an opportunity to develop their research career and to interact with some of the top minds in the research community.


Required Qualifications:

  • PhD in anthropology, communications, media studies, sociology, science & technology studies, or a related field. 
  • A research program demonstrated by journal and conference publications.

Preferred Qualifications:

  • A strong social scientific or humanistic methodological, analytical, and theoretical foundation.
  • Strong communication skills.
  • The ability to work in a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary environment.
  • Demonstrated leadership potential in research.


Postdoctoral researchers define their own research agenda. Postdocs are expected to be lively contributors to discussions in the SMC research group, and the MSR New England lab.

The ideal candidate may be trained in any number of disciplines, but should have a strong social scientific or humanistic methodological, analytical, and theoretical foundation, be interested in questions related to technology or the internet and society or culture, and be interested in working in a highly interdisciplinary environment that also includes computer scientists, mathematicians, and economists.

Application process

Submit an online application here. [11/18/20 – updated link]

To get started with your application, press the “Apply now” button. When prompted, upload your CV and provide names and contact information of three referees; one of your letter writers must be your dissertation advisor.

In addition, you must upload the following 3 documents, as attachments, to your online application:

1. a single research statement (4 page maximum length) that does the following:

  • outlines the questions and methodologies central to your research agenda (~ two pages);
  • offers a description of how your research agenda relates to research conducted by the Social Media Collective (~ one page);
  • provides an abstract and chapter outline of your dissertation (~ one page)

2+3. two writing samples: journal articles, book chapters, or equivalent (uploaded as two separate attachments).

Remember to press the “Submit” button at the last screen.

Requests for recommendation letters will be automatically sent to your list of referees on your behalf. NOTE: THE APPLICATION SYSTEM WILL NOT REQUEST REFERENCE LETTERS UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR APPLICATION! We recommend that you warn your letter writers in advance, so they will have their letters ready to submit as soon as they receive the prompt. The email they receive will tell them they have two weeks to respond, but consideration of application begins very quickly after the deadline – so submitting early will give them adequate time to get their letters to us. Please make sure to check back with your referees to ensure they received the request for letters of recommendation and that they sent them. You can also check the progress on individual reference requests at any time by clicking the “status” tab within your application page.

To be assured of full consideration, all of your materials need to be submitted by December 1, 2020. For more information, see here.If you have any questions about the application process, you can contact Tarleton Gillespie at and please include “SMC postdoc” in the subject line.

Microsoft is an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to age, ancestry, color, family or medical care leave, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, protected veteran status, race, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, or any other characteristic protected by applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. We also consider qualified applicants regardless of criminal histories, consistent with legal requirements.

If you need assistance and/or a reasonable accommodation due to a disability during the application or the recruiting process, please send a request via the Accommodation request form.

More than tools: who is responsible for the social dilemma?

The Social Dilemma has been causing a stir, somewhat ironically, on social media lately. While the film’s topic is timely, and explored with applaudable intentions, its subject matter is mishandled. For all of its values, and all of its flaws, the film’s diagnosis of social media is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Its recommended path to recovery, as a result, leads to a dead-end. Until we think of technology not as a tool but as a set of relations, we will never truly grasp the problems with which The Social Dilemma is concerned.

Jim Dine, 1973, "No Title"
Jim Dine, 1973, “No Title”

This feature length documentary turns primarily to tech industry insiders, as well as a few computer scientists, economists, and social psychologists, to spell out the dangers, which appear to be many, of our current entwinement with social media platforms today.

Glitzy infographics correlate the advent of social media with increased anxiety, depression, and self-harm in US teenagers – supposedly because platforms so easily allow us to compare ourselves to one another online. Sliding scales represent how the algorithmic filtering of information on social media increases political polarization – by only presenting self-reinforcing information to users, so it goes, social media are damaging to rational deliberation. And, in a rather confusing turn, human actors personify the technological nudges of the social media user interfaces – showing how our actions, and our very thoughts, are shaped by persuasive computer design.

The Social Dilemma argues that social media platforms are designed to manipulate us, capturing our attention for their economic gain. The longer we interact with platforms, the more data we produce, the more accurate a prediction of our behaviours can be established. These user profiles can then be sold individually or as part of demographics to marketers and advertisers wishing to reach specific audiences online.

To guard against such dangers, the documentary implores viewers to “take back control” of their lives online. A little self-discipline in how we use social media can help – limit your time spent scrolling? Turn off your push-notifications? Perhaps don’t stalk your ex’s new life, zombie-like, right before bed? However, while such actions are a start, the film’s experts argue, full control can only be achieved through complete disconnection from social media altogether.

Notwithstanding the validity of the “evidence” the documentary mobilises to justify its claims, or its tendency to trust those in the tech industry to know how to mend what they themselves have wrought, The Social Dilemma actually reveals a bigger issue at the core of our relationship with social media – one that individual, behavioural changes alone won’t fix. In our debates surrounding the impacts, potentials and perceivable “dangers” of social media today, we continue to rely upon an out-dated and redundant “tool-view” of technology.

To anyone who has paid even the scantest notice of the news in recent years, the negative effects of social media and the attention economy– in personal, political, and social spheres, are easily grasped. But the way The Social Dilemma makes its case for “manipulation” is flawed, obscuring the real, and much more profound, stakes of our deal with social media today.

To be “manipulated” suggests that users are being diverted from a course of action they would otherwise have taken. This implies a pre-existing individual, already happily furnished with their own desires, and with full capacity to enact them as they please. Social media, in this framework, is the diverting, deceiving technology that takes individuals away from their “true” interests. By falling prey to the nudges of social media, and giving in completely to what they are predicted to want, users are stopped from acting wilfully, as they otherwise would.

Yet when have human beings ever been fully and perfectly in control of the technologies around them? Is it not rather the case that technologies, far from being separate from human will, are intrinsically involved in its activation?

French philosopher Bruno Latour famously uses the example of the gun to advance this idea, which he calls mediation. We are all aware of the platitude, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. In its logic, the gun is simply a tool that allows the person, as the primary agent, to kill another. The gun exists only as an object, through which the person’s desire of killing flows. For Latour, this view is deeply misleading.

Instead, Latour draws our attention to the way the gun, in translating a human desire for killing into action, materializes that desire in the world: “you are a different person with the gun in your hand”[1], and the gun, by being in your hand, is different than if it were left snuggly in its rack. Only when the human intention and the capacities of the gun are brought together can a shooting, as an observably autonomous action, actually take place. It is impossible to neatly distinguish the primary agents of the scene. Responsibility of the shooting, which can only occur through the combination of human and gun, and by proxy, those who produced and provided it, is thus shared.

With this in mind, we must question how useful it is to think about social media in terms of manipulation and control. Social media, far from being a malicious yet inanimate object (like a weapon) is something more profound and complex: a generator of human will. Our interactions on social media platforms, our likes, our shares, our comments, are not raw resources to be mined – they simply could not have occurred without their technical mediation. Neither are they mere expressions of our autonomy, or, conversely, manipulation: the user does not, and cannot, act alone.

Instead, with this idea of mediation, neither human individuals, nor the manipulative design of platforms, seductive they may be, can be the sole causes of the psychological and political harm of social media. Rather, it is the coming together of human users and user-interfaces, in specific historical settings, that co-produce the activity that occurs upon them. We, as users, as much as the technology itself, therefore, share responsibility for the issues that rage online today.

However, we are not responsible in the terms of control that the talking heads of The Social Dilemma argue for. This is certainly not to side-step the culpability of those (overwhelmingly white, male Californians) who own, design, and release social media technologies. Understanding who profits from social media, and the normative cultural worldviews they peddle, is crucial. Rather, in recognising the complexity of this “socio-technical” relationship – between designers, users, interfaces, and algorithms – we can move beyond the unhelpful binary of cause and effect. A move away from deterministic thinking would widen our view, to consider the problems raised in The Social Dilemma in a more nuanced way.

For example, rather than seeing the ostensible crisis in mental health faced by teenagers as caused by social media self-comparison, we can investigate how other socio-political factors –  gender, race, and class inequities for instance, material conditions, as well as actual governmental policy decisions, entangle with social media to contribute to our feelings of individual and collective wellbeing. As opposed to considering social media filter bubbles and echo chambers as causing political polarization (as if it were merely a matter of access to the right information), we can instead ask in what ways our fractured political climate actually reflects the systemic failures of neoliberal ideology, lasting institutional racism, and patriarchal nation-statehood.

If we are to pursue these more complex, more progressive, discussions, it is necessary to re-frame social media as something more than a mere “tool”. Rather than simply leave it to former tech industry insiders to spell out the ills of social media in documentaries like The Social Dilemma, we must engage with thinkers from a diverse range of backgrounds to look to the historical conditions of social media’s origins, while always questioning the economics and cultural politics of its global dissemination.  We must personally examine how our own thoughts and actions are subtly shaped by social media’s design, while taking time to listen to marginalized individuals and communities who are impacted the most by the violence produced through social media today. And by seeing technology as a relation, by sharing responsibility in this way, we lift the burden of fixing the problem from the individual user alone, and discard the moralizing discourses such a burden brings.

[1] Latour, B. (1994) On Technical Mediation Common Knowledge Fall Vol.3, no 2. Pp. 32-33