Abstract
This chapter explores the ethical destabilisation that the development of the Internet and related new media technologies has provoked, an unsettling of ethical expectations and assumptions that is felt by both researchers and Internet users. Examining researchers’ responses to the challenges of conducting research in online environments, the chapter considers how the idea of an ‘ethical’ Internet researcher has emerged in this work. It then explores moves towards localised and contingent research ethics in recent writing about online and offline research, and considers how these moves relate to the institutionalisation of ethical guidance and regulation of research in academic contexts. The chapter closes with an introduction to the author’s study of two online fan communities – a study that underpins the discussion of ethics in the chapters that follow – and a description of the key ethical issues that were faced during the project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An activity which is central to videogame play (see Consalvo 2007).
- 2.
‘For instance, it is a frequent practice in Whyville to lie to Whyvillians [citizens of Whyville] to obtain their password so that one can log into another’s account and send the money to oneself’ (Fields and Kafai 2010, 70).
- 3.
- 4.
Again, see Thomas (2004).
- 5.
See the Wikipedia entry on cautionary tales; www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cautionary_tale.
- 6.
I am not entering here into the debate as to whether good character necessarily leads to good ethical conduct – for discussion of this, see McNamee’s description of character in virtue ethics, 2001.
- 7.
As I will explore in Chap. 5, written accounts of research demonstrate the challenges of trying to reach such aspirations.
- 8.
See also Whiteman (2010) for discussion of these moves.
- 9.
‘[…] though virtually any visual images involved in this trade are prohibited, words are subject to constitutional protections’ (Jenkins 2001/2003, 19).
- 10.
The relationship between general principles and local instantiations of ethics is explored in each of the chapters but discussed in most detail in Chap. 6.
- 11.
See Chap. 5.
- 12.
As Oliver (2003) suggests, ‘One has only to think of the complex interactions which take place during interview research, to imagine the apparently minor but still important ethical situations which arise. The respondent asks a question about the research process, and the researcher has to decide how to reply; the respondent asks to see a copy of the research data, or the respondent becomes slightly uncooperative – all these situations may have an element of ethical decision-making’ (Oliver 2003, 45).
- 13.
As an example of the problems that researchers may face when administering surveys, McKeown and Weed describe how ‘[…] prior warnings in an informed consent of sensitive or private questions and reminders of the option to refuse to answer may not be enough. If we ask questions that can induce stress or anxiety, then we also have an obligation to assist those who are affected by those questions’ (McKeown and Weed 2004, 67). The issue then is how these obligations are worked through by the researcher and how this informs their subsequent actions.
- 14.
See Whiteman (2010) for discussion of this tension between control and contingency in the design of research and maintenance of ethical stances.
- 15.
Dowling is also one of the co-authors of a research methods text (Doing Research/Reading Research (2010/1998), with Andrew Brown) that I recruit in Chap. 2. The approach to the production of research methods in this text can be seen to align with social activity method’s focus on the ongoing and strategic patterning of social relations, in emphasising the relational and dialogic development of research methods over fixed or formulaic research procedures (see Chap. 2).
- 16.
The study was funded by a 1 + 3 award from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
- 17.
At the point of its closure in December 2005, the forums on COA had 1,450 registered users, 495 threaded discussions (threads), and 19,183 posted messages (posts). At the point of writing up the research, the forums on SHH had 6,492 registered users, 7,830 threads, and 175,685 posts.
- 18.
City of Angel had been online since December 1999 and Silent Hill Heaven since November 2002.
- 19.
See Whiteman (2008a).
- 20.
See Whiteman (2008b).
- 21.
See Whiteman (2007) for discussion of the development of my archiving strategy during the study.
- 22.
There were two exceptions to this statement, which I will discuss in Chap. 5.
- 23.
Regular visits to these sites generated a central sample of 7,338 posts from both sites; this constituted the primary focus of my analysis.
References
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2006). Multidisciplinary research ethics review: Is it feasible? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(5), 405.
Allen, C. (1996). What’s wrong with the ‘Golden Rule’? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace. The Information Society, 12(2), 175–188. Available online: http://jthomasniu.org/Tis/go.christin.html
Baym, N., & Markham, A. (2009). Introduction: Making smart choices on shifting ground. In Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Berry, D. M. (2004). Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation: An open source approach. Internet Research, 14(4), 323–332.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Calvey, D. (2008). The art and politics of covert research: Doing ‘Situated Ethics’ in the field. Sociology, 42(5), 905–918.
Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2007). Predatory vs. Dialogic ethics: Constructing an illusion or ethical practice as the core of research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 315–335.
Cavanagh, A. (1999). Behaviour in public? Ethics in online ethnography. Cybersociology, (6). Available online: http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/6/cavanagh.html
Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Clark, M. C., & Sharf, B. F. (2007). The dark side of truth(s). Ethical dilemmas in researching the personal. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 319–416.
Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dingwall, R. (2006). An exercise in fatuity: Research governance and the emasculation of HSR. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 11(4), 193–194.
Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Mathematical myths/pedagogic texts. London: Falmer Press.
Dowling, P. (2009). Sociology as method: Departures from the forensics of culture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research/reading research: Re-interrogating education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323(10), 1103–1105.
Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Contestations and effects of cheating in a tween virtual world: “Stealing from Grandma” or generating cultural knowledge? Games and Culture, 5(1), 64–87.
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the internet: A report of a workshop June 10–11, 1999. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available online: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf.
Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211–225.
Humphreys, S., Fitzgerald, B., Banks, J., & Suzor, N. (2005). Fan-based production for computer games: User-led innovation, the ‘Drift of Value’ and intellectual property rights. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 114, 16–29. Available online: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=010273434967423;res=IELHSS.
Jenkins, P. (2001/2003). Beyond tolerance: Child pornography on the internet. New York/London: New York University Press.
Johns, M. D., Hal, G. J., & Crowell, T. L. (2004). Surviving the IRB review: Institutional guidelines and research strategies. In M. D. Johns, S. Chen, & G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 105–124). New York: Peter Lang.
King, S. A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119–128.
Knobel, M. (2002). Rants, ratings and representation: Issues of ethics, validity and reliability in researching online social practices. Draft paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 3 April, 2002. Available online: http://www.geocities.com/c.lankshear/ethics.html.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
MacDougall, R. (2010). eBay ethics: Simulating civility today, for the ‘Digital Democracies’ of tomorrow. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(2), 235–244.
Macfarlane, B. (2009). Researching with integrity: The ethics of academic inquiry. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Markham, A. N. (2006). Ethic as method, method as ethic: A case for reflexivity in qualitative ICT research. Journal of Information Ethics, 15(2), 37–54.
Mason, J. (2004). Ethics in qualitative research (book review). Sociology, 38(5), 1070–1071.
Mattingly, C. (2005). Towards a vulnerable ethics of research practice. Health: An interdisciplinary Journal of the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine, 9(4), 453–471.
Mauther, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., & Miller, T. (Eds.). (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 711–749. Available online: www.writing.ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/McKee_Article.pdf.
McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). The ethics of Internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
McKeown, R. E., & Weed, D. L. (2004). Ethical choices in survey research. Social and Preventative Medicine, 49(1), 67–68.
Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 23, 2223–2234.
Oliver, P. (2003). The student’s guide to research ethics (open up study skills). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rimm, M. (1995). Marketing pornography on the information highway: A survey of 917,410 images, descriptions, short stories, and animations downloaded 8.5 million times by consumers in over 2000 cities in and territories. Georgetown Law Journal, 83, 1849–1934.
Roberts, L., et al. (2003). Conducting ethical research online: Respect for individuals, identities and the ownership of worlds. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 62–78). Hershey/London: Idea Group Inc.
Sharf, B. F. (1999). Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 243–256). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Sieber, J. E. (2004). Using our best judgment in conducting human research. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 297–304.
Sikes, P. (2008). At the eye of the storm: An academic(‘s) experience of moral panic. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2), 235–253.
Simons, H., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Thomas, J. (1996). When cyber-research goes wrong: The ethics of the Rimm ‘Cyberporn’ study. The Information Society, 12(2), 189–197. Available online: http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.jt2.
Thomas, J. (2004). Reexamining the ethics of internet research: Facing the challenge of overzealous oversight. In M. D. Johns, S. L. Chen, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 187–202). New York: Peter Lang.
Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 205–216.
White, M. (2002). Representations or people? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 249–266.
White, C., & Bailey, C. (2004). Feminist knowledge and ethical concerns: Towards a geography of situated ethics. Espace, Populations, Societes, 1, 131–141.
Whiteman, N. (2007). The establishment, maintenance and destabilisation of fandom: A study of two online communities and an exploration of issues pertaining to internet research. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London. Available online: http://homepage.mac.com/paulcdowling/ioe/studentswork/whiteman(2007).pdf.
Whiteman, N. (2008a). Learning at the cutting edge? Help-seeking and status in online videogame fan sites. Information Technology, Education and Society, 9(1), 7–26.
Whiteman, N. (2008b). Homesick for Silent Hill: Modalities of nostalgia in fan responses to Silent Hill 4: The room. In L. Taylor & Z. Whalen (Eds.), Playing the past: History and nostalgia in videogames (pp. 32–49). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and contingency: Maintaining ethical stances in research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 6–22.
Wiles, R., Coffey, A., Robison, J., & Prosser, J. (2010). Ethical regulation and visual methods: Making visual research impossible or developing good practice? (ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Working Paper Series), eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/812/2/ethical_regulation_and_visual_methods.pdf.
Zimmer, M. (2009). “But the data is already public!”: On the ethics of research in facebook. In Open conference systems, internet research 10.0. Available online: http://ocs.sfu.ca/aoir/index.php/ir/10/paper/view/168. Last accessed 12 November 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whiteman, N. (2012). Ethical Stances in (Internet) Research. In: Undoing Ethics. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1827-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1827-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1826-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1827-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)