Online research and ethical principles of online communication

Online-Based Research as Computer-Mediated Communication

Insights from Online Communication Ethics

Nele Heise, M. A.

ECREA 2012, 4th European Communication ConferenceOctober 26, 2012, Istanbul

Master thesis on internet research ethics (2010-2011)

• qualitative interviews with 17 German internet researchers• application of ethical standards not problematic with conventional

methods • problems and insecurities occur with genuine online methods (e.g.

avatar-based research), new research objects (e.g. social networks) and/or due to new practices (e.g. publication vs. conversation)

Arising conflicts due to breaches of norms or standards of online communication?

:: Background ::

Heise | Online Research Ethics 2

Online research as [Computer-mediated] Communication

Ziegaus (2009): “dependence of social sciences of their media”• Social science research relies on communication, social

scientists establish communicative relations• these relations depend on mutual role expectations and

(technical, social and physical) media

3

Preconditions of online based research • (spatial and temporal) de-contextualization• Disembodiment, virtualization (textuality)• informational constraints: degree of social presence, anonymity

Heise | Online Research Ethics

Researcher role

• ethical standards of research • technical / methodological requirements of research• research experience / practices

User role • principles of communication ethics • rules of media use (e.g. netiquettes)• individual media literacy/competence

“Hybridity” of online research contexts

• technical & social frames of media practices• characteristics of online communication• terms of use, rights of the providers• individual ethical argumentation • fidelity & responsibility

hybrid role

4Heise | Online Research Ethics

Wolff (2007) Beck (2010)“Personalität” Comprehensibility

Reciprocity RightnessAuthenticity ThruthTruthfulness Truthfulness


Ethical principles of online communication

Comprehensibility• mutual understanding (language & culture) as a basic prerequiste of

communication online based research with kids & teens or the understanding of specific user cultures (e.g. online gamers), net competence

6

Ethical Principles & Research Practice


“Personalität”• recognition of the personhood of others, prohibition of

objectification, respecting the communication partner as “an end in itself” (human dignity) perception of research participants as „incoming datasets“; texts vs. actors

Truth & Truthfulness• congruency of saying and reality & obligation to speak the truth;

complete and true information about identity and communication aims/goals, otherwise: failure of communication informational constraints for verification (data, user accounts etc.) and identification/authentication; “visibility" of researchers and disclosure of research (e.g. “fake profiles”)

7



Reciprocity• mutuality of communication

“As a participant I have greater autonomy (…) so I can leave situations easier that are unpleasant for me. On the other hand, I am cut off of information. (…) as a participant I have to trust a bit more, because the setting might be harder to grasp. If I go to an experiment at a university and the door sign of the person that invited me says ‘Mr./Ms. X’, also I can see in which department this takes place (…) so, there I have more hints pointing to the seriousness of the research. On the internet, this is harder to understand. Also, it is easier to pretend things or to give false facts. (…). There is a bigger informational insecurity for participants. At the same time, they have a greater scope for actions and can drop off more easily than in a f2f-situation.”

[media psychologist, online games research]

8



Rightness or “Richtigkeit” • Access to online “spaces”• Recruitment of participants• Ambivalence of methods (data mining, log file analysis, profiling)

9



Authenticity• to act as you yourself, undisguised and be open-minded, but:

selective authenticity to safeguard privacy shifting boundaries of privacy & publicity (data, practices) as well as private and professional life, and equivalency of context

“it is not just (…) a technology, an infrastructure, which is simply there. Instead, we are appropriating it and it has a specific meaning for us. If you are going to MySpace you do different things than on Facebook (…) these are very different spaces or Lebenswelten, with different functions and meanings. Once you acknowledge that (…) we as researchers have to take a certain position: not to sniff around and observe everything because it is easily accessible, but instead to be aware of the fact that these spaces are made by people for themselves. (…) Although it is easily technically accessible in principle.”

[doctoral student, visual analysis of self-representation in SNS]

10



“At the very moment at which I'm registered, I accept the rules of the community, and agree that I will follow them. (…) Not I as a researcher define: what I am doing, what I'm citing or publishing is unproblematic, no problem. The complete opposite is true: the group sets the boundaries. (…) I as a researcher have a kind of ‘Holschuld’, a duty to obtain their consent.”

[research assistant, online observational analysis]

“as social scientists, working with media users, we all know that media usage is not always rational. I cannot assume that (…) it is a conscious decision if someone is not using his/her privacy settings. (…) You must give the users some credit, because you cannot take for granted that you can use it, only because it is not secured.“

[research assistant, online games research]

11



Some final remarks

• Online communication ethics as a chance to carry out ethical research in a very dynamic field

• Relevance of online communication ethics due to the ‘hybrid role’ as researcher/user, e.g. selective authenticity to avoid privacy conflicts

• Implications: prospective approach to ethical consideration, reflection of communicative settings and strategies, integration in teaching and methodological discourse


Thanks* for your attention!

Nele Heise, M. A.

Hans Bredow Institute, [email protected]

@neleheisehttp://de.slideshare.net/garneleh

* My ECREA 2012 participation is kindly funded by the DAAD

References

AoIR (ethics working committee) (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from: www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf (April 30, 2012).

Beck, K. (2010). Ethik der Online-Kommunikation. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (pp. 130-155). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Donk, A. (2010). The sciences they are a-changing: Wie das Internet das Sozialsystem Wissenschaft verändert. Retrieved from: http://www.lisa.gerda-henkel-

stiftung.de/content.php?nav_id=1237&print=true&sessionid=C3Yvv8f6Ebe-pO3-82iz0EkcW61 (July 14, 2011).Döring, N.(1999). Sozialpsychologie des Internet: die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen.

Göttingen (u.a.): Hogrefe.Dzeyk, W. (2001). Ethische Dimensionen der Online-Forschung. Kölner Psychologische Studien 6(1), 1-30. Retrieved from:

http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/volltexte/2008/2424/pdf/ethdimon.pdf (January 21, 2011). Eynon, R., Schroeder, R. & Fry, J. (2009). New Techniques in Online Research. Challenges for Research Ethics. 21st Century Society 4(2), 187-199.Fenner, D. (2010). Einführung in die Angewandte Ethik. Tübingen: Francke.Fraas, C., Meier, S. & Pentzold, C. (2012). Online-Kommunikation. Grundlagen, Praxisfelder und Methoden. Wien: Oldenbourg Verl. Hamilton, R. J. & Bowers, B. J. (2006). Internet Recruitment and E-Mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Health Research 16(6), 821-835.McKee, H. & Porter, J. E. (2009). The Ethics of Internet Research. A Rhetorical, Case-Based Process. New York u.a.: Peter Lang. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157.Sandbothe, M. (1996). Medienethik im Zeitalter des Internet. Telepolis. Die Zeitschrift der Netzkultur 0, 35-48. Retrieved from:

http://www.sandbothe.net/32.html (June 23, 2012).Schmidt, J. (2009). Braucht das Web 2.0 eine eigene Forschungsethik? Zeitschrift für Kommunikationsökologie und Medienethik 11(2), 38-42.Taddicken, M. (2009). Die Bedeutung von Methodeneffekten der Online-Befragung: Zusammenhänge zwischen computervermittelter Kommunikation und

Datengüte. In N. Jackob, H. Schoen & T. Zerback (Eds.), Sozialforschung im Internet: Methodologie und Praxis der Online-Befragung (pp. 91-107). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Vanacker, B. & Heider, D. (2012). Ethical Harms in Virtual Communities. Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 18(1), 71-84.

Volst, A. (2003). The Focus Is on Me? – Fokus-Gruppe: Von Face to Face zu Online. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28(4), 93-118.Wolff, O. J. (2007). Kommunikationsethik des Internets: eine anthropologisch-theologische Grundlegung. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Ziegaus, S. (2009): Die Abhängigkeit der Sozialwissenschaften von ihren Medien. Grundlagen einer kommunikativen Sozialforschung. Bielefeld: transcript.

What‘s the fuss about?

Dilemmas of Internet Research

• technical feasibility vs. ethical acceptability of research (practices)

• The web as „science laboratory“: Comprehensive logging and storage,

easily accessible archive of communication and interaction processes

• Richness of data (“big data”), ease of field access, better conditions for

specific methods e.g. observational analysis

• Blurring boundaries of publicity and privacy (data, “spaces”)

• De-Contextualization and global reach of Research

• Data (Re-)Combination and anonymization, „Googlization of data“

A reminder for Internet Researchers

“There cannot be a blanket, whole cloth approach to Internet Research ethics. Contextual details matter, including: What, exactly, is the object of analysis of the study – texts, aggregated bits of information, or the persons themselves? What are the use expectations of the online site and of the online participants? What is the sensitivity of the information collected? What are the ages, geo-cultural-political affiliations, and/or technological expertise of the online participants? In what form are the researchers collecting data, and in what forms are they re-distributing it? Is the researcher using real names or real user/avatar names, quoting passages, taking screenshots, etc.? And where will this material appear and to whom will it be accessible?”

(McKee & Porter, 2009. pp. 7f.)

Education

Online research and ethical principles of online communication