Hazy Boundaries: Virtual Communities and Research Ethics

Abstract

This paper examines ethical issues specific to research into virtual communities. Drawing on an empirical case with online forums of education experts, we identify the following key issues: publicity versus privacy of the community; the definition of human subjects research; participant recruitment; informed consent; and ethical questions associated with observing virtual communities, and with reporting and disseminating research results. We maintain that different research cultures in different countries can present challenges when studying global forums. Acknowledging the ephemeral characteristics of Internet contexts, this paper argues that ethical considerations should be more case-based, instead of relying on one model for all solutions. We suggest that local ethics committees or institutional review boards could, with their expert knowledge of ethics, provide valuable support for researchers operating in the complex and dynamic terrain of Internet research, as well as in fields and research settings where an ethical review is not a standard part of the research process.

“Like a Sheriff in a Small Town”: Status, Roles, and Challenges of Ethics Committees in Academic Colleges of Education

“…These findings are in line with previous studies, whereby the limited resources of the CSO cause long delays and even deter researchers from submitting research plans for ethical approval or encourage them to alter their research question (Hazzan et al, 2018). In other cases, researchers simply recruit teachers (i.e., participants) through social media, without considering the related ethical problems (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016). Although some policy changes have been introduced by the CSO, specifically delegating school principals to ethically approve studies, they have not yet received adequate support from researchers.…”

Desafíos éticos en el estudio de comunidades digitales: una propuesta basada en un caso empírico

“…Este daño puede ser mental, económico o social, además de ocurrir en distintos momentos de la investigación, incluidas la recolección de los datos y la publicación de los resultados (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016). En su trabajo, Rosenberg (2010) también destaca la importancia de no causar daño a los y las participantes y a la sociedad en general, pero menciona otro objetivo, en el que nos centraremos más adelante: comprender dónde está el límite entre lo privado y lo público ayuda, precisamente, a no herir a quienes analicemos.…”

“…Algo que puede ayudar a esclarecer estas interrogantes sobre el consentimiento es considerar la metodología que se emplee. El consentimiento informado es requerido siempre y cuando la persona que investiga realice entrevistas (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016), por lo que una aproximación que solo se base en el material escrito por los usuarios y usuarias podría no requerir solicitar esta aprobación. Willis (2017) propone dos condiciones que permitirían prescindir del consentimiento informado: si los datos son públicos y si son solamente textuales.…”

“…Como han planteado académicos y académicas de esta área (Nissenbaum, 2011), Internet genera una disrupción de los límites entre lo público y lo privado de una variedad, y a una escala, sin precedentes. A esto se suma que no hay una regla de oro que se pueda seguir para cada análisis; al contrario, las decisiones que deben tomarse desde una perspectiva ética dependen de las diversas características de los sitios web (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016).…”

Micromobilization through live streaming: the Elin Ersson case

“…Both the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (n.d.) and Sveningsson's model (as cited in Östman & Turtiainen, 2016) have been used to determine the sensitivity of the personal data used. Given that Ersson's video was live streamed and subsequently publicly posted, I concluded that it was intended for public use (Kantanen & Manninen, 2016). I exercised caution, however, with the comments that were posted to the video.…”