September 2009 • Anthropology News

27

K N O W L E D G E E X C H A N G E

K N O W L E D G E E X C H A N G E

Ethical Considerations for Digital FieldworkCyberethnography and IRBs

Faith Warner Bloomsburg U of Pennsylvania

When nearly half of my ethnographic methods class requested to conduct research online, I discovered that somewhere between grad-uate school and my tenth year teaching I had become methodologically conservative. Having been trained during a previous decade of experimental ethnography, I nearly did not recognize my own words when I replied that they would have to do “real ethnography.” The next day, I was presented with a list of recent dissertations in cyberethnography that my class used to challenge me to get “off the veranda” and get online. As the “non-science” representative on my university IRB, I had already struggled through the points of agree-ment and departure between the AAA Code of Ethics and IRB regulations. Anticipating even more IRB difficulties with cyberethnography, I agreed to mentor my students’ online research with significant trepidation.

Imagine conducting fieldwork in a commu-nity in which everyone is disguised as a were-animal and no one is permitted to remove their mask or reveal their true identity when inter-acting in the public sphere. When not in “furre” form in this virtual world (Furcadia), individuals are widely dispersed in homes across the phys-

ical world. Secrecy, disguise and privacy are fundamental values in this culture. There is no way to announce yourself as an anthropologist without being immediately removed from the community by omniscient guardian enforcers who see and hear all social interaction. How would you obtain informed consent in this field site? How would you respect the privacy of your informants when all interaction is recorded and observed by unknown overseers?

Although this virtual world may pique the interests of ethnographic researchers, Furcadia presents multiple and conflicting problems in terms of adherence to the AAA Code of Ethics and IRB guidelines. Despite the fact that both IRBs and the AAA are concerned with informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, they often disagree on the interpretation, application and validation of such issues. Resolving the conflicts

that emerge between competing sets of ethical guidelines is compounded in online ethno-graphic research. In particular I have found that virtual worlds present the most notable ethical challenges when it comes to meeting IRB and AAA ethical guidelines relating to informed consent and privacy, whereas the use of email, blogs, wikis, twittering and networking sites are less problematic.

Privacy and Informed ConsentThe cyberethnographer must first recognize that there can be no privacy on the Internet, and that they should advise all informants of this at the earliest opportunity. In the case of Furcadia discussed above, you do not know the actual identity of the virtual world’s guard-ians and cannot be sure of their powers of observation. Also, your network is not fully secure in the sense that your online activi-ties are conducted through servers where you again cannot promise an informant complete confidentiality. Further, before research even begins, the cyberethnographer must learn how to successfully communicate to an IRB the nature of difficulties with obtaining informed consent and maintaining privacy, and determine if suitable research methods can be developed.

The question becomes: how can you recog-nize and respond to these challenges and main-

tain ethical standards without creating work-arounds that impede your research? First, you should inform your IRB that you will maintain privacy to the extent that you can within the limitations of the specific site of your research and the Internet in general. Particular research procedures can vary significantly across websites, just as they can across physical field sites. On Facebook, for example, you can create a page where informants can read a project description and informed consent form that contains a clear statement that if they engage in communication with you (such as through a survey or online interview), they are implic-itly providing informed consent to participate in your study. Although this format often satis-fies IRB requirements, an IRB may still insist on physically signed informed consent, which can pose an insurmountable restriction on field-

work. If at all possible this should be negotiated with your IRB, for asking online communica-tors to use “snail mail” is sure to put an end to your interaction.

Working Productively with IRBsAlthough several universities have recently developed specific IRB guidelines for Internet research, be prepared for the likelihood that your IRB is not well-informed in this area. Be ready to take the lead and meet with your IRB chair to discuss acceptable ways of obtaining online informed consent. Bring examples and ethics guidelines from online research at other institutions and summarize the major issues for your IRB. Most IRBs respond well to an estab-lished practice by other institutions, so if you provide them a precedent, you may simplify the process. Keep in mind that although most institutions have IRBs that operate according to general guidelines, each local IRB interprets

those guidelines as an independent entity, so the establishment of good rapport will go a long way toward making the IRB process a helpful rather than hindering experience, especially where clear guidelines do not yet exist.

I believe that online research has the poten-tial to be as transformative to the discipline as leaving the armchair and stepping off the veranda was nearly a century ago. A forward-looking statement from the AAA on Internet research ethics could help facilitate IRB approval of projects with online field sites. On more than one occasion, I have used the AAA Statement on Ethnography and IRBs as an educational tool when approaching these committees. Most IRBs will make a significant effort to accom-modate the ethical requirements of specific disciplines, so if we as a professional commu-nity develop our own statement on cybereth-nographic ethics, we can guide both IRBs and ourselves through the brave new virtual worlds of cyberspace. If not, we may find ourselves limited by IRBs that already have difficulty with “actual” ethnographic research.

Faith Warner is an associate professor of anthro-pology at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania and has been teaching ethnographic methods and ethics since 1997. She is a long-standing member of her university IRB committee.

F I E L D N O T E S

Jessica Feidor’s online research into geek identity produced this poster for the 106th AAA meeting, titled Past the Pocket Protectors: Today’s Geeks and the Culture of Passion. Photo courtesy Faith Warner