Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Tri-Council Policy Statement and Research in Cyberspace: Research Ethics, the Internet, and Revising a ‘Living Document’

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly, the Internet is proving to be an important research tool. Today, cyberspace affords researchers easy access to traditionally difficult to reach populations, a host of virtual communities, and a wealth of data created through computer-mediated-communication. This newfound research frontier brings with it, however, a multiplicity of ethical concerns, including: (1) whether the Internet constitutes a private or public space; (2) whether the human subject paradigm is appropriate when considering the ethics of Internet research; and (3) whether cyber participants/‘speakers-as-writers’ and communities should be guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity when researchers contain or consider them in research. This paper examines these specific ethical concerns as they relate to Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, which, as yet, does not explicitly address ethics involved in Internet research. I propose that in large part the Internet is by definition a public site of activity, and as such, many posters cannot expect their texts to remain confidential, nor their names anonymous, and that the human subject paradigm is highly problematic in terms of regulating ethics involved in some research generated through new information technologies. This is most expressly the case with computer-mediated-communication, which, in light of the Tri-Council Policy Statement, can be viewed as theoretically akin to public entertainment and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bassett, E. and O'Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of Internet research: Contesting the human subject research model, Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baym, N. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion, Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(4), 315–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, A. (2000). Virtual Behavior Settings: A Framework for Understanding Virtual Communities, Doctoral Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University: Claremont, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLorme, D., Zinkhan, G. and French, W. (2001). Ethics and the Internet: Issues associated with qualitative research, Journal of Business Ethics 33(4), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1995). Information technologies, communicative acts, and the audience: Couch's legacy to communication research, Symbolic Interactionism 18(3), 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1999). Cybertalk and the method of instances, In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, Thousand Oakes, California: Sage, pp. 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgesem, D. (2002).What is special about the ethical issues in online research?, Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 195–2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities, British Medical Journal 323(7321), 1103–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. and Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet: A Report of a Workshop, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC. <htpp://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/inters/main. htm> Retrieved May 12, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada (2002). Process and principles for developing a Canadian governance system for the ethical conduct of research involving humans, Position paper, Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE), Ottawa.

  • Government of Canada (2003a). PRE consultation: Evolving the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) to better meet the need of Canada's social sciences and humanities (SSH) communities, Ottawa, June 1.

  • Government of Canada (2003b). PRE consultation of the social sciences and humanities research community, Interagency advisory panel on research ethics, Ottawa, August 1.

  • Grubisic, K. (1998). Ethics in Research. Imprint Online 21 (10) (Friday, 25 September). <http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/092598/1News/news07.shtml> Retrieved May 28, 2003.

  • Gurak, L. (1996). The multi-faceted and novel nature of using cyber-texts as research data, In T. Harrision and T. Stephen (Eds.), Computer Networking and Scholarly Communication in the Twenty-First-Century University, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. (1996). Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations, The Information Society 12(2), 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interagency Plenary on Research Ethics (PRE) (2003a). Consultation on the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) – the Evolution of the TCPS and opportunities for refinement, Government of Canada, Canadian Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences Conference, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2003b). Call for comments: Identifying procedural and definitional issues for potential revision in the TCPS. <http://www.pre. ethics.gc.ca/english/publicparticipation/callforcomments/revisingTCPS.cfm> Retrieved July 11, 2003.

  • Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and offline experiences in text-based communities, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5(1) <http://www.ascuse.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/jacobson.html> Retrieved May 28, 2003.

  • Jones, S. (1999). Studying the Net: Intricacies and issues, In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayany, J. (1998). Contexts of uninhibited online behavior: Flaming in social newsgroups on Usenet, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(12), 1135–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, D., Murray, J. and Linden, R. (2004). Sociology in Our Times. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results, The Information Society 12(2), 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, H. (2002). The Tri-Council on cyberspace: Insights, oversights, and extrapolations, In W. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 160–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (1998). Cyberspace: The World in the Wires. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, P. (1996). How is the medium the message? Notes on the design of networked communication, In T. Harrision and T. Stephen (Eds.), Computer Networking and Scholarly Communication in the Twenty-First-Century University, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C. and Sutton, M. (1998). Netcrime: More change in the organizing of thieving, British Journal of Criminology 38(2), 201–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitive Research Online, Chapter 3 An ethical framework. London: Sage Publications, pp. 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, K. and Bargh, J. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity 'demarginalization' through virtual group participation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(3), pp. 681–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, K. (1999). The Computers That Bind: Relationship Formation on the Internet, Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University: Athens, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • McQuarrie, F. (1995). Collecting data from electronic communications: Accepted ethical rules should be followed. QS News (Winter), 5.

  • Miller, C. (1995). Protection of human subjects of research in Canada. Health Law Review 4(1), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • MRC, NSERC and SSHRC [Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council] (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects. Retrieved May 28, 2003. <http://www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/ethics-e.pdf>

  • Munt, S., Bassett, E. and O'Riordan, K. (2002). Virtually belonging: Risk, connectivity, and coming out on-line, International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 7(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, M. (1995). Jean Baudrillard in cyberspace: Internet, virtuality, and postmodernity, Style 29(2), 314–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(1), June.

  • Parks, M. and Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace, Journal of Communication 46(1), 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, H. (1997). Computer-Mediated Groups: A Study of a Culture in Usenet Newsgroups, Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A & M University: College Station, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittenger, D. (2003). Internet research: An opportunity to revisit classic ethical problems in behavioral research, Ethics and Behavior 13(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli, S. (1992). In lieu of summary: Ethics, ownership, technics, and next, <ftp.arch.su. edu.au/pub/projectH/logs>

  • Robson, K. and Robson, M. (2002). Your place or mine? Ethics, the researcher and the Internet, In T. Welland and L. Pugsley (Eds.), Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research, Altershor, England: Ashgate, pp. 94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwimmer, B. (1996). Anthropology on the Internet: A review and evaluation of networked resources, Current Anthropology 37(3), 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharf, B. (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, Thousand Oakes, California: Sage, pp. 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., McLaughlin, M. and Osborne, K.: (1997). Conduct control on usenet, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4), special issue.

  • Thomas, J. (1996). Introduction: A debate about ethics of fair practices for collecting social science data in cyberspace, The Information Society 12(2), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoonaard, W. (2002). Some concluding thoughts, In W. van den Hoonaard (Ed.), Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. (2002). Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia, Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waskul, D. and Douglas, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research, The Information Society 12(2), 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittle, D. (1997). Cyberspace: The Human Dimension. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R6, Canada

    Heather A. Kitchin

Authors
  1. Heather A. Kitchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kitchin, H.A. The Tri-Council Policy Statement and Research in Cyberspace: Research Ethics, the Internet, and Revising a ‘Living Document’. Journal of Academic Ethics 1, 397–418 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000025671.83557.fa

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000025671.83557.fa

Search

Navigation