Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-19 DOI:10.1177/1747016120988767
Wyke J P Stommel, Lynn de Rijk
{"title":"Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data","authors":"Wyke J P Stommel, Lynn de Rijk","doi":"10.1177/1747016120988767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although ethical guidelines for doing Internet research are available, most prominently those of the Association of Internet Researchers (www.aoir.org), ethical decision-making for research on publicly available, naturally-occurring data remains a major challenge. As researchers might also turn to others to inform their decisions, this article reviews recent research papers on publicly available, online data. Research involving forums such as Facebook pages, Twitter, YouTube, news comments, blogs, etc. is examined to see how authors report ethical considerations and how they quote these data. We included 132 articles published in discourse analysis-oriented journals between January 2017 and February 2020. Roughly one third of the articles (85 out of 132) did not discuss ethical issues, mostly claiming the data were publicly available. Quotations nevertheless tended to be anonymized, although retrievability of posts was generally not taken into account. In those articles in which ethical concerns were reported, related decisions appeared to vary substantially. In most cases it was argued that informed consent was not required. Similarly, approval from research ethics committees was mostly regarded unnecessary. Other ethical issues like consideration of users’ expectations and intentions, freedom of choice, possible harm, sensitive topics, and vulnerable groups were rarely discussed in the articles. We argue for increased attention to ethical issues and legal aspects in discourse analytic articles involving online data beyond mentioning general concerns. Instead, we argue for more involvement of users/participants in ethical decision-making, for consideration of retrievability of posts and for a role for journal editors.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":"275 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120988767","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: 27

Abstract

Although ethical guidelines for doing Internet research are available, most prominently those of the Association of Internet Researchers (www.aoir.org), ethical decision-making for research on publicly available, naturally-occurring data remains a major challenge. As researchers might also turn to others to inform their decisions, this article reviews recent research papers on publicly available, online data. Research involving forums such as Facebook pages, Twitter, YouTube, news comments, blogs, etc. is examined to see how authors report ethical considerations and how they quote these data. We included 132 articles published in discourse analysis-oriented journals between January 2017 and February 2020. Roughly one third of the articles (85 out of 132) did not discuss ethical issues, mostly claiming the data were publicly available. Quotations nevertheless tended to be anonymized, although retrievability of posts was generally not taken into account. In those articles in which ethical concerns were reported, related decisions appeared to vary substantially. In most cases it was argued that informed consent was not required. Similarly, approval from research ethics committees was mostly regarded unnecessary. Other ethical issues like consideration of users’ expectations and intentions, freedom of choice, possible harm, sensitive topics, and vulnerable groups were rarely discussed in the articles. We argue for increased attention to ethical issues and legal aspects in discourse analytic articles involving online data beyond mentioning general concerns. Instead, we argue for more involvement of users/participants in ethical decision-making, for consideration of retrievability of posts and for a role for journal editors.
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
伦理认可:无人寻求。话语分析师如何报告围绕公开在线数据的道德问题
虽然互联网研究的伦理准则是可用的,最突出的是互联网研究协会(www.aoir.org),但对公开可用的、自然发生的数据进行研究的伦理决策仍然是一个主要挑战。由于研究人员可能也会向他人寻求信息来做出决定,本文回顾了最近关于公开可用的在线数据的研究论文。研究涉及论坛,如Facebook页面、Twitter、YouTube、新闻评论、博客等,以查看作者如何报告伦理考虑以及他们如何引用这些数据。我们纳入了2017年1月至2020年2月期间发表在话语分析导向期刊上的132篇文章。大约三分之一的文章(132篇中的85篇)没有讨论伦理问题,大多数声称数据是公开的。然而,报价往往是匿名的,虽然一般没有考虑到员额的可检索性。在那些涉及伦理问题的文章中,有关的决定似乎差别很大。在大多数情况下,有人认为不需要知情同意。同样,研究伦理委员会的批准也被认为是不必要的。其他伦理问题,如考虑用户的期望和意图、选择的自由、可能的伤害、敏感话题和弱势群体,在文章中很少被讨论。我们主张在涉及在线数据的话语分析文章中增加对伦理问题和法律方面的关注,而不是提及一般问题。相反,我们主张让用户/参与者更多地参与伦理决策,考虑文章的可检索性,以及期刊编辑的角色。
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
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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