Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Journal of Digital Social Research

Research Articles

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2022)

Ethical Use of Informant Internet Data: Scholarly Concerns and Conflicts

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v4i1.88
Submitted
April 27, 2021
Published
2021-12-07

Abstract

This article explores the scholarly concerns and conflicts debated by authors in the field of the use of informant internet data in research. The importance lies in informant protection and how to minimize harm to them, a long-standing cornerstone of research practice. It is also a public domain issue as increased calls for data privacy grew because of reported data breach scandals. Although not a new problem, academic researchers and university ethics boards struggle with concerns over data use and are in conflict about managing the problem. This article uses thematic analysis to identify, analyze and interpret patterns of concerns and conflicts over internet data use. Data was obtained from academic publications on these issues. Three themes from this data are discussed with examples demonstrating the types of, and complexity of, scholarly concerns and conflicts. These themes are: the problems of informant data use risks, gaining mass informed consent and the challenges ethics boards face, especially conflicts with researchers over internet data use on projects. This article contributes insights into a widely, and continuously, debated area which is constantly evolving as privacy laws and public awareness place pressure on researchers and ethics boards to address protecting informant public internet data.

References

  1. Ahmed, W., Bath, P., & Demartini, G. (2017). Chapter 4 using Twitter as a data source: An overview of ethical, legal, and methodological challenges. In Woodfield, K. (Ed.), The ethics of online research. advances in research ethics and integrity volume 2 (pp. 79-107). Emerald Publishing Limited.
  2. Ainscough, E., Smith, S. N., Greenwell, K., & Hoare, D. J. (2018). Findings and ethical considerations from a thematic analysis of threads within tinnitus online support groups. American Journal of Audiology, 27(3), 503-512. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0013
  3. Bay, M. (2018). Social media ethics: A Rawlsian approach to hypertargeting and psychometrics in political and commercial campaigns. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 1(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281450
  4. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
  5. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  8. Buchanan, E. (2017). Considering the ethics of big data research: A case of Twitter and ISIS/ISIL. PLoS ONE, 12(12), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187155
  9. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(2), 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12165
  10. Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed., pp. 222-248). Sage Publications.
  11. Côté, L., & Turgeon, J. (2005). Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590400016308
  12. Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Oxford University Press.
  13. Ess, C. (2006). Internet research ethics. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., and Reips, U (Eds.), Oxford handbook of psychology. (pp. 487-503). Oxford University Press.
  14. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ Clinical Research, 323(7321), 1103-1105. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59687/. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
  15. Feeley, M. (2007). Legality, social research, and the challenge of institutional review boards. Law and Society Review, 41, 757-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00322.x
  16. Ferday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
  17. Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). “Participant perceptions” of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366
  18. Flick, C. (2016). Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study. Research Ethics, 12(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115599568
  19. Franzke, A., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & the Association of Internet Researchers. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
  20. Gupa, S. (2017). Ethical issues in designing internet-based research: Recommendations for good practice. Journal of Research Practice, 13(2), 1-14. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/576/476
  21. Gustafson, D., & Woodworth, C. (2014). Methodological and ethical issues in research using social media: A metamethod of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(127), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-127
  22. Hallinan, B., Brubaker, J., & Fiesler, C. (2020). Unexpected expectations: Public reaction to the Facebook emotional contagion study. New Media and Society, 22(6), 1076-1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819876944
  23. Hand, D. (2018). Aspects of data ethics in a changing world: Where are we now? Big Data, 6(3), 176-190. https://doi.org/176-190. 10.1089/big.2018.0083
  24. Information Commissioner’s Office. (2018). Guide to the general data protection regulation (GDPR). https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf
  25. Jarzombek, M. (2016). Digital Stockholm Syndrome in the post-ontological age. University of Minnesota Press.
  26. Johanssen, J. (2021). Data perversion: A psychoanalytic perspective on datafication. Journal of Digital Social Research, 3(1), 88-105. https://www.jdsr.io/articles/2021/3/26/data-perversion-a-psychoanalytic-perspective-on-datafication. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v3il.57
  27. 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(4), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.579
  28. Keith-Spiegel, P., Koocher, G., & Tabachnick, B. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.67
  29. Kinder-Kurlanda, K., Weller, K., Zenk-Möltgen, W., Pfeffer, J., & Morstatter, F. (2017). Archiving information from geotagged tweets to promote reproducibility and comparability in social media research. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736336
  30. Koenig, G. (2018). Introduction: The Softian bargain. In I. Landreau, G. Peliks, N. Binctin, V. Pez-Pérard & L. Léger (Eds), My data are mine: Why we should have ownership rights on our personal data (10-17). Paris: GenerationLibre. https://www.generationlibre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Rapport-Data-2018-EN-v2.pdf
  31. Kramer, A., Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS, 111(24), 8788-8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
  32. Kumar, V., & Nanda, P. (2019). Social media to social media analytics: Ethical challenges. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT), 10(2), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.2019070104
  33. McKee, R. (2013). Ethical issues in using social media for health and health care research. Health Policy, 110(2-3), 298-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.02.006
  34. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). https://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  35. Metcalf, J., & Crawford, K. (2016). Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211
  36. Nowell, L., Norris, J., White, D., & Moules, N. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  37. Nunan, D., & Yenicioglu, V. (2013). Informed, uninformed and participative consent in social media research. International Journal of Market Research, 55(6), 791-808. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2013-067
  38. Samuel, G., & Buchanan, E. (2020). Guest editorial: Ethical issues in social media research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(1-2), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619901215
  39. Samuel, G., Derrick, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2019). The ethics ecosystem: Personal ethics, network governance and regulating actors governing the use of social media research data. Minerva, 57, 317-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09368-3
  40. Sinclair, M. (2017). Using social media for research. Evidence Based Midwifery, 15(2), 39. Available at: https://www.rcm.org.uk/media/2787/evidence-based-midwifery-june-2017.pdf
  41. Stevens, G., O'Donnell, V., & Williams, L. (2015). Public domain or private data? Developing an ethical approach to social media research in an inter-disciplinary project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(2), 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1024010
  42. Sugiura, L., Wiles, R., & Pope, C. (2017). Ethical challenges in online research: Public/private perceptions. Research Ethics, 13(3-4), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650720
  43. Svensson, J., & Guillen, O. P. (2020) What is data and what can it be used for? Key questions in the age of burgeoning data essentialism. Journal of Digital Social Research, 2(3), 65-83. https://jdsr.se/ojs/index.php/jdsr/article/view/40/27. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v2i3.40
  44. Vitak, J., Proferes, N., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2017). Ethics regulation in social computing research: Examining the role of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(5), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617725200
  45. Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149-1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517708140
  46. Zwitter, A. (2014). Big data ethics. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714559253