Vibe Research

When doing your own research goes off the rails

Doing your own research

You would think that telling someone to do their own research is positive. After all, you’re encouraging someone to locate quality information, take in different perspectives, discover new ideas, and come to an informed conclusion.

Alas, most people are conducting that research on the Internet. So, we have some problems. And somehow, do your own research has become a rallying cry for conspiracy theorists, with the phrase coming across as alternately a threat, an exhortation, or a brag. What exactly happened here? Researchers have studied how doing your own research on controversial topics can lead people down rabbit holes or into so-called “data voids,” which are spaces where credible information on a topic, often emerging or developing, is sorely lacking. But given the current state of social media, online search, the entire Internet (which Cory Doctorow describes as enshittification), and the emergence of genAI, I wanted to consider some of the other factors that I think contribute to both the problematic rallying cry for doing your own research and the difficult process of actually doing research in online environments in addition to AI slop and worsening online search.

Information pollution and AI slop

We all, regardless of whatever research skills we possess, are participating in information environments that are shaped by a seemingly endless array of challenges. Our information environments are dominated by algorithms that personalize, categorize, and sort people into groups for marketing purposes, showing you whatever it thinks will keep you glued to a given platform for as long as possible. We inhabit environments beset by what researchers call “information pollution,” where we are overwhelmed with junk content clamoring for our attention. And we are increasingly inundated by things like AI hallucinations and AI slop, which are making the information pollution problem of a few years ago look like a small amount of litter.

The issues with our information environments, which can manipulate, overwhelm, mislead, or frustrate in turn, can make conducting research challenging, to put it mildly. Even people who might possess more practice or experience conducting research can struggle in our algorithmically driven online environments that flood your feed with content designed to keep you glued to a screen, often by triggering strong emotions.

The danger in these sorts of information environments is where people who think they are conducting solid research online end up landing on incorrect information or reinforcing problematic stances or views that, for instance, are not rooted in science or even facts. Whether someone lands in a data void thanks to a lack of credible information, falls prey to their curated algorithm spoon-feeding them appealing content, can’t see their way out of a filter bubble, or gets derailed by bogus AI results, online research is plagued with pitfalls. And even going outside the Internet is no longer a safe bet, as libraries, for instance, are dealing with AI slop invading their catalogs. I think we are grappling with a few interconnected issues here that can lead people to not just struggle with the research but to perform the research process without actually reaping any of the benefits of that process.

All about the vibes

When we talk about performance we have to talk about vibes. Our social media platforms in particular seem to operate on vibes, as if it is a fuel source. These often highly visual platforms emphasize aesthetics and a certain look and feel (something that is often very apparent on various sub-groups on TikTok). Vibe culture is often discussed in terms of branding and marketing, where people might be attracted to a brand based on its aesthetics, the feelings it evokes, or the overall vibe in other words. Or we see things like vibe coding, which seems to involve performing coding and cobbling together a facsimile of code, like a sort of Frankenstein’s monster, without really understanding how anything works. AI platforms, including a company that actually chose to name itself VibeCode, celebrate the vibes, while many actual developers decry the junk code being produced and the total lack of experience and understanding underlying that code. I’m not a developer, but I think there’s an interesting connection between vibe coding, vibe culture’s overall emphasis on surface over substance, and what I think we could term vibe research. I think that this emphasis on vibes, and arguably the emphasis on feelings and appearances, has influenced the way we process information and has bled over into other information areas as well, including legacy media outlets which increasingly adopt social media tactics like clickbait to compete in the viciously competitive attention economy online.

In vibe world, truth can be about how something feels or how it looks. What something is becomes immaterial (rather funny considering the materialism run rampant that is a hallmark of modern social media and the modern Internet) compared to how it feels. And more abstract things like issues, decisions, or ideas can become unmoored from reality. The more important thing is whether the vibes are on or off when it comes to making a decision.

Stephen Colbert, years ago when he was doing the Colbert Report, delivered a brilliant parodic rant extolling the benefits of “truthiness” which is essentially the vibe of truth. If you feel something is true, then it must be true! This isn’t to say that feelings are bad. I’m always one to promote reflection and mindfulness and other rather feeling-oriented (and what some might describe as woo) pedagogies. The difference there is that people are encouraged to reflect on their feelings, not just be led around blindly by them and latch onto information that confirms what they are already feeling. Vibes are not just about surface-level appearance but about how things feel and resonate. It is image and aspiration, performance of an ideal, approbation from your chosen audience, the assurance of being on trend, and the comfort of having your feelings confirmed.

Performing the research process

With vibes, there’s an emphasis on adopting and achieving a certain look and feel that also performs well in social media spaces and with the ever-present algorithm. And this sort of performative expression can extend to conducting research or sharing information with others, particularly in various internet sub-cultures where there might be certain kinds of acceptable sources, common language or hashtags used, or particular creators (positioned as authority figures) referenced. One example of this kind of space are certain wellness communities, with their aesthetic workout attire, fitspiration posts, and reference to dubious “science” to prove whatever is de rigueur at the moment, from raw milk to going gluten free (to rewind a few years). Online search, exploration, and research today is often conducted under the umbrella of vibe culture. But research can also act as a mechanism that reinforces vibe culture, with an emphasis on performance, feelings, and appearance.

Intentional or not, emphasis on feelings and vibes can influence people online just as algorithms can. What feels correct must be correct. So, telling people to “do their research” on controversial issues can also be a call for someone to engage in the performance of research, where the research they are doing has the veneer of being solid but actually leads someone further into a rabbit hole, functions as a form of confirmation bias, or otherwise fails to enlighten. Even individuals with more research experience can struggle to break out of an algorithmic filter bubble, make sense of the sheer amount of junk online, and navigate their way through vibe-driven hot takes delivered by attention-seeking pundits and influencers on every issue under the sun.

Research skills for our current information environments

Our current information environments, particularly our social media environments, place a premium on vibes while also overwhelming us with junk, pollution, hallucinations, and slop. Obviously, not teaching people how to do research isn’t the answer here. But I do think, when it comes to things like information and media literacy, it is increasingly important to center both the challenging information and media environments we inhabit as well as the often emotional nature of research and the motivations that can drive someone to seek information and knowledge, which can sometimes involve seeking confirmation rather than discovery. I want to advocate for an information and media literacy that is emotionally resonate, that centers reflection and a metacognitive awareness, and that is grounded in the complicated and messy reality of our current, and unfortunately junky, information environments.

It is not enough to just fact check information and seek out quality content, especially on today’s Internet. People need to be aware of the systems where we are consuming and producing information as well as their own motivations and emotions when they enter information seeking spaces or engage in information seeking behavior. While we can’t fix the Internet overnight, we can at least be better aware of the challenges within our information environments and the way these environments shape our experiences with research and information. And I think that one way forward here is to open up space for conversation and encourage learning about the current Internet, vibes and all. Rather than treating research as a rarefied activity, I think we can look at research as a complex, messy, emotional, and daily activity that we all engage in, often in the wilds of the Internet amidst junky content, aggressive algorithms, personal appeals, and, of course, vibes.

I’ll be posting more on this topic soon and taking a closer look at AI slop, conspiracy theories, liminal spaces, and information and media literacy instruction approaches. If that sounds interesting, please consider subscribing! Let me know in the comments how you are grappling with research, or with teaching others about research skills, in our current online environments.