Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 59–73 | Cite as

Advancing the ethical use of digital data in human research: challenges and strategies to promote ethical practice

  • Karin Clark
  • Matt Duckham
  • Marilys Guillemin
  • Assunta HunterEmail author
  • Jodie McVernon
  • Christine O’Keefe
  • Cathy Pitkin
  • Steven Prawer
  • Richard Sinnott
  • Deborah Warr
  • Jenny Waycott
Original Paper


The proliferation of digital data and internet-based research technologies is transforming the research landscape, and researchers and research ethics communities are struggling to respond to the ethical issues being raised. This paper discusses the findings from a collaborative project that explored emerging ethical issues associated with the expanding use of digital data for research. The project involved consulting with researchers from a broad range of disciplinary fields. These discussions identified five key sets of issues and informed the development of guidelines orientated to meet the needs of researchers and ethics committee members. We argue that establishing common approaches to assessing ethical risks of research involving digital data will promote consistency in the ethical standards for research, enable the smooth functioning of ethics committees, and sustain public confidence in research. We conclude with recommendations for the development of educational resources for ethics committees, data management guidelines and further public education.


Bioethics Internet research Digital data Data security Data sharing Privacy/confidentiality Research ethics committees Institutional review boards 



The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the Carlton Connect Initiative Fund, University of Melbourne.


  1. ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics. (2011) (Revised 2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Berlin: ALLEA—All European Academies. Retrieved from
  2. Andalibi, N., Haimson, O. L., De Choudhury, M., & Forte, A. (2016). Understanding Social Media Disclosures of Sexual Abuse Through the Lenses of Support Seeking and Anonymity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. Q., & Raine, L. (2014). The internet of things will thrive by 2025. New York: The Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. E., & Sieber, J. E. (2009). The need for evidence-based research ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(11), 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, A., & Powell, R. A. (1997). Authorship. Guidelines exist on ownership of data and authorship in multicentre collaborations. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barsh, G. S., Cooper, G. M., Copenhaver, G. P., Gibson, G., McCarthy, M. I., Tang, H., & Williams, S. M. (2015). PLOS genetics data sharing policy: In pursuit of functional utility. PLoS Genetics, 11(12), e1005716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates, J. (2012). “This is what modern deregulation looks like”: Co-optation and contestation in the shaping of the UK’s open government data initiative. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2), 1–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Beddows, E. (2008). The methodological issues associated with internet-based research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 6(2), 124–139.Google Scholar
  9. Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgman, C, Wallis, J. C., & Enyedy, N. (2006). Building digital libraries for scientific data: An exploratory study of data practices in habitat ecology. In S. Kapidakis, C. Mazurek, & M. Werla (Eds.) Research and advanced technology for digital libraries (pp. 170–183). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd, D. (2016). Untangling research and practice: What Facebook’s “emotional contagion” study teaches us. Research Ethics, 12(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, B., Weilenmann, A., McMillan, D., & Lampinen, A. (2016). Five Provocations for Ethical HCI Research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  14. Bruckman, A. (2014). Research ethics and HCI ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 449–468). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchanan, E. A. (2004). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchanan, E. A. (2011). Internet research ethics: Past, present, and future. In: M. Consalvo & Ch. Ess (Eds.) The handbook of internet studies (pp. 83–108). Chichester: WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buchanan E.A., & Ess, C. M. (2009). Internet research ethics and the institutional review board: Current practices and issues. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 39(3), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buchanan, E., & Hvizdak, E. E. (2009). Online survey tools: Ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(2), 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buchanan, E., Aycock, J., Dexter, S., Dittrich, D., & Hvizdak, E. (2011). Computer science security research and human subjects: Emerging considerations for research ethics boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burton, P. R., Murtagh, M. J., Boyd, A., Williams, J. B., Dove, E. S., Wallace, S. E., Tassé, A., et al. (2015). Data safe havens in health research and healthcare. Bioinformatics, 31, 3241–3248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Calear, A. L., & Christensen, H. (2010). Review of internet-based prevention and treatment programs for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Medical Journal of Australia, 192(11), S12.Google Scholar
  22. Chang, R. L., & Gray, K. (2013). Ethics of research into learning and teaching with Web 2.0: Reflections on eight case studies. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(3), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christensen, H., Griffiths, K. M., & Jorm, A. F. (2004). Delivering interventions for depression by using the internet: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328(7434), 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, K., Duckham, M., Guillemin, M., Hunter, A., McVernon, J., O’Keefe, C., et al. (2015). Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Digital Data in Human Research. Retrieved from
  25. Convery, I., & Cox, D. (2012). A review of research ethics in internet-based research. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 50–57.Google Scholar
  26. Conway, M. (2014). Ethical issues in using Twitter for public health surveillance and research: Developing a taxonomy of ethical concepts from the research literature. Journal of medical Internet research, 16(12), e290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cragin, M. H., Palmer, C. L., Carlson, J. R., & Witt, M. (2010). Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4023–4038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Culnane, C., Rubinstein, B. I., & Teague, V. (2017). Health Data in an Open World. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05627.Google Scholar
  29. Daly, J. (1996). Ethical intersections: Health research, methods and researcher responsibility. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  30. De Choudhury, M., Counts, S., & Horvitz, E. (2013). Predicting postpartum changes in emotion and behavior via social media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  31. Duckham, M., & Kulik, L. (2005). A formal model of obfuscation and negotiation for location privacy. In H. W. Gellersen, R. Want, A. Schmidt (Eds.) Pervasive computing (pp. 152–170). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duckham, M., & Kulik, L. (2006). Location privacy and location-aware computing. Dynamic & Mobile GIS: Investigating Change in Space and Time, 3, 35–51.Google Scholar
  33. Ess, C. & AoIR Ethics Working Committee. (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Retrieved from
  34. Fisher, J. B., & Fortmann, L. (2010). Governing the data commons: Policy, practice, and the advancement of science. Information & management, 47(4), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fry. (2013). Researcher and HREC attitudes about the ethics of e-research in Australia. Paper presented at the Emerging issues, controversies and innovating for change., Freemantle.Google Scholar
  36. Fry. (2014). Addressing the ethics of health eResearch with human participants. Paper presented at the Towards Unified Global Research, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  37. Fry, C., Spriggs, M., Arnold, M., & Pearce, C. (2014). Unresolved Ethical Challenges for the Australian Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) System: Key Informant Interview Findings. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 5(4), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Geissbuhler, A., Safran, C., Buchan, I., Bellazzi, R., Labkoff, S., Eilenberg, K., et al. (2013). Trustworthy reuse of health data: A transnational perspective. International journal of medical informatics, 82(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gleibs, I. (2014). Turning virtual public spaces into laboratories: Thoughts on conducting online field studies using social network sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  40. Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2007). Internet-based mental health programs: A powerful tool in the rural medical kit. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 15(2), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gustafson, D. L., & Woodworth, C. F. (2014). Methodological and ethical issues in research using social media: A metamethod of Human Papillomavirus vaccine studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339(6117), 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hargittai, E. (2015). Is bigger always better? Potential biases of big data derived from social network sites. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harriman, S., & Patel, J. (2014). The ethics and editorial challenges of internet-based research. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harvey, F. (2013). To volunteer or to contribute locational information? Towards truth in labeling for crowdsourced geographic information. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, M. Goodchild (Eds.) Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 31–42): Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Henderson, T., Hutton, L., & McNeilly, S. (2012). Ethics and online social network research–developing best practices. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Proceedings of the 26th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
  47. Hine, C. (2005). Internet research and the sociology of cyber-social-scientific knowledge. The Information Society, 21(4), 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Holman, C. D. A. J., Bass, J. A., Rosman, D. L., Smith, M. B., Semmens, J. B., Glasson, E. J., et al. (2008). A decade of data linkage in Western Australia: Strategic design, applications and benefits of the WA data linkage system. Australian Health Review, 32(4), 766–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M., Duggan, D., Tembe, W., Muehling, J., et al. (2008). Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics 4(8), e1000167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoser, B., & Nitschke, T. (2010). Questions on ethics for research in the virtually connected world. Social Networks, 32(3), 180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Iversen, A., Liddell, K., Fear, N., Hotopf, M., & Wessely, S. (2006). Consent, confidentiality, and the data protection act. BMJ, 332(7534), 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones, C. (2011). Ethical issues in online research. Retrieved from
  53. Jouhki, J., Lauk, E., Penttinen, M., Sormanen, N., & Uskali, T. (2016). Facebook’s emotional contagion experiment as a challenge to research ethics. Media and Communication. 4, 75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kahn, J. P., Vayena, E., & Mastroianni, A. C. (2014). Opinion: Learning as we go: Lessons from the publication of Facebook’s social-computing research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(38), 13677–13679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2008). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaye, J. (2012). The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., Morrison, M., Teare, H., & Melham, K. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(2), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keim-Malpass, J., Steeves, R., & Kennedy, C. (2014). Internet ethnography: A review of methodological considerations for studying online illness blogs. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(12), 1686–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2010). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Knoppers, B. M. (2014). Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data. The HUGO Journal, 8(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Knoppers, B. M., Harris, J. R., Tassé, A. M., Budin-Ljøsne, I., Kaye, J., Deschênes, M., & Ma’n, H. (2011). Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research. Genome Medicine, 3(7), 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Koene, A., Perez, E., Carter, C. J., Statache, R., Adolphs, S., O’Malley, C., et al. (2015). Research ethics and public trust, preconditions for continued growth of internet mediated research. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Information System Security and Privacy (ICISSP).Google Scholar
  64. Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 8788–8790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014b). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (Verma. IM. Editorial Expression of Concern and Correction). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 10779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lane, J., & Schur, C. (2010). Balancing access to health data and privacy: A review of the issues and approaches for the future. Health Services Research, 45(5p2), 1456–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lee, L. M., & Gostin, L. O. (2009). Ethical collection, storage, and use of public health data: A proposal for a national privacy protection. JAMA, 302(1), 82–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Liu, L., Huh, J., Neogi, T., Inkpen, K., & Pratt, W. (2013). Health vlogger-viewer interaction in chronic illness management, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 49–58). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  70. Lunnay, B., Borlagdan, J., McNaughton, D., & Ward, P. (2014). Ethical use of social media to facilitate qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. Scholar
  71. Malin, B. A., El Emam, K., & O’Keefe, C. M. (2013). Biomedical data privacy: Problems, perspectives, and recent advances. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(1), 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from, Association of Internet Researchers website.
  73. Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & Committee, A. E. W. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Version 2.0. Association of Internet Researchers.Google Scholar
  74. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  75. McKee, R. (2013). Ethical issues in using social media for health and health care research. Health Policy, 110(2), 298–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McMillan, D., Morrison, A., & Chalmers, M. (2013). Categorised ethical guidelines for large scale mobile HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  77. Metcalf, J., & Crawford, K. (2016). Where are Human Subjects in Big Data Research? The Emerging Ethics Divide. The Emerging Ethics Divide (May 14, 2016). Big Data and Society, Spring.Google Scholar
  78. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2015). Guidelines Under Sect. 95 of the Privacy Act (1988). Retrieved from
  79. National Research Council. (2009). Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  80. NHMRC. (2012). Ethical Issues in Research into Alcohol and Other Drugs: an issues Paper Exploring the Need for a Guidance Framework. Retrieved from
  81. NHMRC. (2007 [2014]). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.
  82. Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. O’Keefe, C. M., & Connolly, C. (2011). Regulation and perception concerning the use of health data for research in Australia. Electronic Journal of Health Informatics. 6(2), e16.Google Scholar
  84. O’Keefe, C. M., & Connolly, C. J. (2010). Privacy and the use of health data for research. Medical Journal of Australia, 193(9), 537–541.Google Scholar
  85. O’Keefe, C. M., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Individual privacy versus public good: Protecting confidentiality in health research. Statistics in Medicine, 34(23), 3081–3103.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Onsrud, H. J. (1995). Identifying unethical conduct in the use of GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 22(1), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rosenbaum, S. (2010). Data governance and stewardship: Designing data stewardship entities and advancing data access. Health Services Research, 45(5p2), 1442–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Safran, C., Bloomrosen, M., Hammond, W. E., Labkoff, S., Markel-Fox, S., Tang, P. C., & Detmer, D. E. (2007). Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: An American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP). (2013). Considerations and recommendations concerning internet research and human subjects research regulations (Recommendations for Research with the Internet). Washington D.C.: US Government. Retrieved from
  90. Selinger, E., & Hartzog, W. (2015). Facebook’s emotional contagion study and the ethical problem of co-opted identity in mediated environments where users lack control. Research Ethics, 12, 35–43.Google Scholar
  91. Shilton, K. (2009). Four billion little brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shilton, K. (2010). Participatory sensing: Building empowering surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 8(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shilton, K., & Estrin, D. (2012). Ethical issues in participatory sensing. Ethics CORE. Urbana: National Center for Professional & Research EthicsGoogle Scholar
  94. Shilton, K., & Sayles, S. (2016). "We Aren’t All Going to Be on the Same Page about Ethics”: Ethical Practices and Challenges in Research on Digital and Social Media. Paper presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).Google Scholar
  95. Sinnott, R., Bayliss, C., Bromage, A., Galang, G., Grazioli, G., Greenwood, P., et al. (2014). The Australia urban research gateway. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 27, 358–375Google Scholar
  96. Sinnott, R., Chhetri, P., Gong, Y., Macaulay, A., & Voorsluys, W. (2015). Privacy-preserving Data Linkage through Blind Geo-spatial Data Aggregation. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity 2015), New York.Google Scholar
  97. The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. (2014). Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research. Retrieved from
  98. Utrecht Data School. (2018). Data Ethics Decision Aid, from
  99. Vayena, E., Salathé, M., Madoff, L. C., Brownstein, J. S., & Bourne, P. E. (2015). Ethical challenges of big data in public health. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(2), e1003904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vayena, E., & Tasioulas, J. (2013). Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vitak, J., Blasiola, S., Patil, S., & Litt, E. (2015). Balancing audience and privacy tensions on social network sites: Strategies of highly engaged users. International Journal of Communication, 9, 20.Google Scholar
  102. Vitak, J., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2016). Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing.Google Scholar
  103. Voosen, P. (2014). Big data scientists face ethical challenges after Facebook study. The Chronicle of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  104. Wallis, J. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Who is responsible for data? An exploratory study of data authorship, ownership, and responsibility. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Walport, M., & Brest, P. (2011). Sharing research data to improve public health. The Lancet, 377(9765), 537–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Warrell, J. G., & Jacobsen, M. (2014). Internet research ethics and the policy gap for ethical practice in online research settings. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 22.Google Scholar
  107. Waycott, J., Guillemin, M., Warr, D. J., Cox, S., Drew, S., & Howell, C. (2015). Re/formulating ethical issues for visual research methods. Visual Methodologies, 3(2), 4–15.Google Scholar
  108. Weitzner, D. J., Abelson, H., Berners-Lee, T., Feigenbaum, J., Hendler, J., & Sussman, G. J. (2008). Information accountability. Communications of the ACM, 51(6), 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wellcome Trust. (2011). Sharing research data to improve public health: Full joint statement by funders of health research Retrieved from Welcome Trust website:
  110. Whitehead, L. C. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4), 782–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zevenbergen, B. (2016). Networked Systems Ethics—Guidelines.Google Scholar
  112. Zevenbergen, B., Mittelstadt, B., Véliz, C., Detweiler, C., Cath, C., Savulescu, J., & Whittaker, M. (2015). Philosophy meets Internet Engineering: Ethics in Networked Systems Research. (GTC workshop outcomes paper).Google Scholar
  113. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and information technology, 12(4), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zimmer, M. (2018). Addressing Conceptual Gaps in Big Data Research Ethics: An Application of Contextual Integrity. Social Media + Society, 4(2), 2056305118768300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Clark
    • 1
  • Matt Duckham
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marilys Guillemin
    • 4
    • 5
  • Assunta Hunter
    • 6
    Email author
  • Jodie McVernon
    • 7
  • Christine O’Keefe
    • 8
  • Cathy Pitkin
    • 9
  • Steven Prawer
    • 10
  • Richard Sinnott
    • 11
  • Deborah Warr
    • 12
  • Jenny Waycott
    • 13
  1. 1.Melbourne Law SchoolMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mathematical and Geospatial SciencesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Geospatial ScienceRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health SciencesThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Health EquityMelbourne School of Population and Global HealthParkvilleAustralia
  6. 6.Melbourne School of Population and Global HealthCarltonAustralia
  7. 7.Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Modelling and Simulation Group within the Centre for Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMelbourne School of Population and Global HealthMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.CSIRO Mathematics, Informatics and StatisticsCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationActonAustralia
  9. 9.Social Responsibility and Ethics at CSIRO, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationActonAustralia
  10. 10.iBIONICSGatineauCanada
  11. 11.Computing and Information Systems DepartmentUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  12. 12.McCaughey Centre, Centre for Health EquityMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia
  13. 13.Department of Computing and Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations