Skip to main content

Internet Research Ethics and Social Media

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Internet research ethics (IRE) is introduced via a historical overview of its development by the Association of Internet Researchers’ ethics committees (2002, 2012, 2020) and the Norwegian Research Ethics Committees (2003, 2006, [2018] 2019). These overlapping but importantly distinctive guidelines foreground key norms and principles (starting with human autonomy and dignity), ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, feminist ethics, care ethics), and prevailing, especially question-oriented approaches to identifying and resolving representative ethical challenges in internet research. Comparing and contrasting these (and other relevant) guidelines further introduce us to additional central elements of assumptions regarding personhood and moral agency (individual vis-à-vis relational); respecting and incorporating diverse national/cultural ethical traditions and norms by way of an ethical pluralism; the role of dialogical, process approaches and reflective ethical judgment (phronēsis); interweaving ethics and methods; and considering ethical challenges characteristic of distinct stages of research. Two challenges evoked by Big Data research techniques are examined, beginning with the possibilities and limitations of informed consent and researchers’ possible use of “gray data” (personal information that is hacked and thus made public and available to researchers). Current and future challenges cluster about protecting both researchers’ and subjects’ privacy – specifically, privacy as now reconceptualized in terms of contextual integrity as appropriate to the more relational selves facilitated especially by social media – in an emerging Internet of Things (IoT).

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

References

  • Barad K (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • British Psychological Society (2017) Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research. INF206/04.2017. Leicester. www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-and-guidelines/research-guidelines-policy-documents/researchguidelines-poli

  • Buchanan E, Ess C (2008) Internet research ethics: the field and its critical issues. In: Himma K, Tavani H (eds) The handbook of information and computer ethics. Wiley, New York, pp 273–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan EA, Zimmer M (2018) Internet research ethics. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-internet-research/

  • Ess C (2015) New selves, new research ethics? In: Ingierd H, Fossheim H (eds) Internet research ethics. Cappelen Damm, Oslo, pp 48–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Ess C (2018) Ethics in HMC: recent developments and case studies. In: Guzman A (ed) Human-machine communication: rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 237–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Ess C, Fossheim H (2013) Personal data: changing selves, changing privacy expectations. In: Hildebrandt M, O’Hara K, Waidner M (eds) Digital enlightenment forum yearbook 2013: the value of personal data. Amsterdam, IOS Amsterdam, pp 40–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Ess C, Hård af Segerstad Y (2019) Everything old is new again: the ethics of digital inquiry and its design. In: Mäkitalo Å, Nicewonger TE, Elam M (eds) Designs for experimentation and inquiry: approaching learning and knowing in digital transformation. Routledge, London, pp 179–196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ess C, The Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Committee (2002) Ethical decision-making and internet research: recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf

  • European Data Protection Supervisor (2018) Towards a digital ethics. Ethics Advisory Group. https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/18-01-25_eag_report_en.pdf

  • Floridi L (2013) Distributed Morality in an Information Society. Sci Eng Ethics 19:727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9413-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotopoulou A (forthcoming) Understanding citizen data practices from a feminist perspective: embodiment and the ethics of care. In: Stephansen H, Trere E (eds) Citizen media and practice. Taylor & Francis/Routledge, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel MS, Siang S (1999) Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research in Cyberspace. A Report of a Workshop, June 10–11. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, p 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzke A (2019) Feminist research ethics. In: franzke et al Internet research: ethical guidelines 3.0. pp 28–37

    Google Scholar 

  • franzke a, Bechmann A, Ess C, Zimmer M, The AoIR Ethics Working Group (2020) Internet research: ethical guidelines 3.0

    Google Scholar 

  • GDPR General Data Protection Regulation, (GDPR) Regulation EU 2016/679. Approved 27 April 2016, implemented May 25 2018. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679.

  • Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall GJ, Frederick D, Johns MD (2003) “NEED HELP ASAP!!!” A feminist communitarian approach to online research ethics. In: Johns M, Chen SL, Hall J (eds) Online social research: methods, issues, and ethics. Peter Lang, New York, pp 239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Hård af Segerstad Y, Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D, Howes C (2017) Studying closed communities on-line: digital methods and ethical considerations beyond informed consent and anonymity. In: Zimmer M, Kinder-Kurlanda K (eds) Internet research ethics for the social age: new challenges, cases, and contexts. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 213–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjarvard S (2017) Mediatization (Critical theory approaches to media effects). In: International encyclopedia of media effects. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0107

  • Hoffman AL, Jonas A (2017) Recasting justice for internet and online industry research ethics. In: Zimmer M, Kinder-Kurlanda K (eds) Internet research ethics for the social age. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hongladarom S (2017) internet research ethics in a non-western context. In: Zimmer M, Kinder-Kurlanda K (eds) Internet research ethics for the social age: new challenges, cases, and contexts. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 151–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson D, Aldrovandi C, Hayes P (2015) Ethical framework for a disaster management decision support system which harvests social media data on a large scale. In Bellamine Ben Saoud N et al (eds) ISCRAM-med 2015. pp 167–180), LNBIP 233. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24399-3_15

    Google Scholar 

  • King S (1996) Researching internet communities: proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. Inf Soc 12(2):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/713856145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer A, Guillory J, Hancock J (2014) Experimental evidence of massive scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111 (24: June 17, 2014) 8788–8790; first published June 2, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, P (2007) Publicly private and privately public: social networking on YouTube. J Comput-Mediat Commun 13 (1: 2007), article 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00400.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leurs K (2017) Feminist data studies. Using digital methods for ethical, reflexive and situated socio-cultural research. Fem Rev 115(1):130–154. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41305-017-0043-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locatelli E (2020) Corporate data: ethical considerations. In: franzke et al Internet research: ethical guidelines 3.0. pp 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg S (2012) Negotiating privacy through phatic communication: a case study of the blogging self. Philos Technol 25:415–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0018-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luka ME, Milette M (2018) (Re)framing big data: activating situated knowledges and a feminist ethics of care in social media research. Soc Media Soc 4(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118768297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton D (2018) How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society (July–December 2018). pp 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham A (2006) Method as ethic, ethic as method. J Inf Ethics 15(2):37–54. https://aoir.org/aoir_ethics_graphic_2016/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham A, Buchanan E (2012) Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

  • Massanari A (2017) #Gamergate and the fappening: how Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media Soc 19(3):329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee H, Porter JE (2009) The ethics of internet research: a rhetorical, case-based process. Peter Lang, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee H, Porter J (2010) Rhetorica online: feminist research practices in cyberspace. In: Schell EE, Rawson KJ (eds) Rhetorica in motion: feminist rhetorical methods & methodologies. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 152–170

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee I (2017) Case study of ethical and privacy concerns in a digital ethnography of South Asian Blogs against intimate partner violence. In: Zimmer M, Kinder-Kurlanda K (eds) Internet research ethics for the social age. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 203–212

    Google Scholar 

  • NESH (The [Norwegian] National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities) ([2018] 2019) A guide to internet research ethics. NESH, Oslo. https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/ethical-guidelines-for-internet-research/

  • Nissenbaum H (2010) Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • OHRP (Office for Human Research Protections) (2018) Subpart A of 45 CFR Part 46: basic HHS policy for protection of human subjects. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/revised-common-rule-reg-text-unofficial-2018-requirements.pdf

  • Poor N (2017) The ethics of using hacked data: Patreon’s data hack and academic data standards. In: Zimmer M, Kinder-Kurlanda K (eds) Internet research ethics for the social age. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp 278–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambukkana N (2019) The politics of gray data: digital methods, intimate proximity, and research ethics for work on the “Alt-Right”. Qual Inq 25(3):312–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensfeldt AB, Hillman T, Lantz-Andersson A, Lundin M, Peterson L (2019) A “Situated ethics” for researching teacher professionals’ emerging facebook group discussions. In: Mäkitalo A, Nicewonger TE, Elam M (eds) designs for experimentation and inquiry: approaching learning and knowing in digital transformation. Routledge, London, pp 197–213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon J (2015) Distributed epistemic responsibility in a hyperconnected era. In: Floridi L (ed) The onlife manifesto: being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer Open, London, pp 145–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarstein V (n.d.) There shall be freedom of expression. https://www.bibalex.org/WSISALEX/3.There%20shall%20be%20freedom%20of%20expression%20by%20Vigdis%20Skarstein.doc

  • Suomela T, Chee F, Berendt B, Rockwell G (2019) Applying an ethics of care to internet research: Gamergate and digital humanities. Digital Studies/Le champ numérique 9(1). https://www.digitalstudies.org/articles/10.16995/dscn.302/

  • Taylor C (1989) Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor L, Floridi L, van der Sloot B (eds) (2017) Group privacy: new challenges of data technologies. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

  • The [Norwegian] National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) (2006) Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi [Research ethics guidelines for social sciences, the humanities, law and theology]

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiidenberg K (2018) Research ethics, vulnerability, and trust on the Internet. In: Hunsinger J, Klastrup L, Allen M (eds) Second international handbook of Internet research. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong R, Williams N (2018) Feminist ethics. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/feminism-ethics/

  • Vallor S (2010) Social networking technology and the virtues. Ethics Inf Technol 12:157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9202-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallor S (2016) Technology and the virtues: a philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Schie G, Westra I, Schäfer MT (2016) Get your hands dirty: emerging data practices as challenge for research integrity. In: Schäfer MT, van Ess K (eds) The datafied society: studying culture through data. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 183–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Walstrom M (2004) Ethics and engagement in communication scholarship: analyzing public, online support groups as researcher/participant-experiencer. In: Buchanan E (ed) Readings in virtual research ethics: issues and controversies. Information Science, Hershey, pp 174–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Westlund A (2009) Rethinking relational autonomy. Hypatia 24(4: Fall):26–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://ensr.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2015/09/ENSR-Oxford-Workshop-report.pdf

  • Zimmer M (2016) OKCupid study reveals the Perils of Big-Data science. Wired Opinion (May 14). https://www.wired.com/2016/05/okcupid-study-reveals-perils-big-data-science/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Melvin Ess .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Ess, C.M. (2019). Internet Research Ethics and Social Media. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_12-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_12-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76040-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76040-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics