No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1177/17470161241247686
Seliem El-Sayed, Filip Paspalj
{"title":"No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research","authors":"Seliem El-Sayed, Filip Paspalj","doi":"10.1177/17470161241247686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recital 33 GDPR has often been interpreted as referring to ‘broad consent’. This version of informed consent was intended to allow data subjects to provide their consent for certain areas of research, or parts of research projects, conditional to the research being in line with ‘recognised ethical standards’. In this article, we argue that broad consent is applicable in the emerging field of Computational Social Science (CSS), which lies at the intersection of data science and social science. However, the lack of recognised ethical standards specific to CSS poses a practical barrier to the use of broad consent in this field and other fields that lack recognised ethical standards. Upon examining existing research ethics standards in social science and data science, we argue that they are insufficient for CSS. We further contend that the fragmentation of European Union (EU) law and research ethics sources makes it challenging to establish universally recognised ethical standards for scientific research. As a result, CSS researchers and other researchers in emerging fields that lack recognised ethical standards are left without sufficient guidance on the use of broad consent as provided for in the GDPR. We conclude that responsible EU bodies should provide additional guidance to facilitate the use of broad consent in CSS research.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241247686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recital 33 GDPR has often been interpreted as referring to ‘broad consent’. This version of informed consent was intended to allow data subjects to provide their consent for certain areas of research, or parts of research projects, conditional to the research being in line with ‘recognised ethical standards’. In this article, we argue that broad consent is applicable in the emerging field of Computational Social Science (CSS), which lies at the intersection of data science and social science. However, the lack of recognised ethical standards specific to CSS poses a practical barrier to the use of broad consent in this field and other fields that lack recognised ethical standards. Upon examining existing research ethics standards in social science and data science, we argue that they are insufficient for CSS. We further contend that the fragmentation of European Union (EU) law and research ethics sources makes it challenging to establish universally recognised ethical standards for scientific research. As a result, CSS researchers and other researchers in emerging fields that lack recognised ethical standards are left without sufficient guidance on the use of broad consent as provided for in the GDPR. We conclude that responsible EU bodies should provide additional guidance to facilitate the use of broad consent in CSS research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有公认的伦理标准,就没有广泛的同意:在计算社会科学研究的窘境中航行
GDPR 第 33 条经常被解释为 "广泛同意"。这一版本的知情同意旨在允许数据主体在研究符合 "公认道德标准 "的前提下,对某些研究领域或研究项目的某些部分表示同意。在本文中,我们认为广泛同意适用于新兴的计算社会科学 (CSS),该领域是数据科学与社会科学的交叉领域。然而,由于缺乏专门针对 CSS 的公认伦理标准,在该领域和其他缺乏公认伦理标准的领域使用广泛同意构成了实际障碍。在研究了社会科学和数据科学领域现有的研究伦理标准后,我们认为这些标准不足以适用于 CSS。我们还认为,欧盟(EU)法律和研究伦理来源的分散性使得建立普遍认可的科学研究伦理标准具有挑战性。因此,缺乏公认伦理标准的 CSS 研究人员和其他新兴领域的研究人员,在使用 GDPR 规定的广泛同意方面缺乏足够的指导。我们的结论是,欧盟负责机构应提供更多指导,以促进在 CSS 研究中使用广泛同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1