REVISITING DIGITAL MEDIA & INTERNET RESEARCH ETHICS

A Process Oriented Approach

NELE HEISE, M.A . | @NELEHEISE

WORKSHOP ”RESEARCH ETHICS FOR DATA AND DIGITAL METHODS”

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 | DATA SCHOOL UTRECHT

Hello.

Media Researcher at the University of Hamburg +

Graduate School Media and Communication Hamburg;

forms, practices and conditions of media participation in

the digital age, as well as ethics of online communication

and digital media, e.g. Big Data, algorithms

Master thesis: »Ethics of Internet Research« (2011)

TODAY

DIGITAL METHODS, DATA AND ETHICS

A PROCESS ORIENTED APPROACH

CONCLUSION

WHY BOTHER ABOUT ETHICS?

WHY BOTHER ABOUT ETHICS?

August 9, 1945 HTTP://WWW.ARCHIVES.GOV/RESEARCH/MILITARY/WW2/PHOTOS/IMAGES/WW2-163.JPG

»The social sciences can […] have a tremendous impact on society, even to the point of revolutionizing our conceptions of human nature, society, and culture.«

DIENER & CRANDALL [1978: 195]

HTTPS://WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM/SCIENCE/HEAD-QUARTERS/2014/JUL/01/FACEBOOK-CORNELL-STUDY-EMOTIONAL-CONTAGION-ETHICS-BREACH

Corporate vs. Academic

HTTP://MOTHERBOARD.VICE.COM/READ/70000-OKCUPID-USERS-JUST-HAD-THEIR-DATA-PUBLISHED

»The data may be ‘public’ (though it must require login and agreement to a [terms of service]) but that does not absolve anyone from an

ethical responsibility.«

R. Munksgaard

HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/SCOTT_BOT/STATUS/730508560778530816

HTTPS://ARXIV.ORG/ABS/1611.04135

AI Research & Ethics

HTTPS://THEINTERCEPT.COM/2016/11/18/TROUBLING-STUDY-SAYS-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-CAN-PREDICT-WHO-WILL-BE-CRIMINALS-BASED-ON-FACIAL-FEATURES/

AI Research & Ethics

AI Research & Ethics

HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/NATEMATIAS/STATUS/802291972488757252

HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/TECHREVIEW/STATUS/800734306998120448

Algorithm Ethics

HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/TECHREVIEW/STATUS/800734306998120448

Ethical challenges and questions, according to The Alan Turing Institute & Oxford Internet Institute: how data is generated, recorded, shared (ethics of data) how artificial intelligence, machine learning and robots

interpret data (ethics of algorithms) devising responsible innovation and professional codes

to guide this emerging science (ethics of practice) See e.g. special issue of Philosophical Transactions A on “the ethical impact of data science” (ed. by M. Taddeo & L. Floridi)

HTTPS://WWW.TURING.AC.UK/NEWS/WHAT-IS-DATA-ETHICS/

Data Science & Ethics

SOME BASICS

RESEARCH ETHICS: KEY ELEMENTS

Ethics are guidelines and principles that help us to uphold our values – to decide which goals of research are

most important and to reconcile values and goals that are in conflict. Ethical guides are not simply prohibitions;

they also support our positive responsibilities.

DIENER/CRANDALL [1978: 3]

(shared) values decision-making responsibility

LEVELS OF ETHICAL REASONING

cf. STROHM KITCHENER & KITCHENER [2009]

critical-evaluative

immediate-situational

Meta-Ethics Ethical Theories

Ethical Principles Ethical Rules

»ordinary moral sense«

Ethics as safeguard for good scientific practice, based on trust, scientific freedom, …

responsibilities regarding

employees, colleagues, team members, peers, scientific community, … [internal]

participants, society, clients etc. [external]

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES & STANDARDS

Core principles:

Human Dignity, Autonomy (self-determination, agency) & Respect for Persons

maximization of benefits and minimization of harms (Nonmalificence & Beneficence), Justice

Protection, Safety & Fidelity

Research standards in regard to participants

– Voluntariness, informed consent – Anonymity, Privacy & Confidentiality – »Do no harm« (avoidance of potential risks)

DIGITAL METHODS, DATA AND ETHICS

»virtual worlds, as sites for meaningful social interaction, also tend to be sites where meaningful ethical harm can occur […].«

VANACKER & HEIDER [2012: 83]

»Internet research encompasses inquiry that: a) utilizes the internet to collect data or information, e.g., through online interviews,

surveys, archiving, or automated means of data scraping; b) studies how people use and access the internet, e.g., through collecting and

observing activities or participating on social network sites, listservs, web sites, blogs, games, virtual worlds, or other online environments or contexts;

c) utilizes or engages in data processing, analysis, or storage of datasets, databanks, and/or repositories available via the

d) studies software, code, and internet technologies e) examines the design or structures of systems, interfaces, pages, and elements f) employs visual and textual analysis, semiotic analysis, content analysis, or other

methods of analysis to study the web and/or internet-facilitated images, writings, and media forms.

g) studies large scale production, use, and regulation of the internet by governments, industries, corporations, and military forces.«

MARKHAM & BUCHANAN [2012: 3f.]

CHALLENGES OF DIGITAL RESEARCH METHODS

De-contextualization (space/time) and global reach of research and data

Data structures: networked, persistent, searchable, …

Informational constraints: disembodiment, communicative distance, degree of social presence, anonymity (verification/authentication)

Blurring boundaries of publicity and privacy (data, spaces) and hybrid roles of the researcher

Legal gray areas and insecurities (no best practices)

e. g. frictionless sharing and »contextual integrity« [NISSENBAUM: 2004]

[DE-]CONTEXTUALIZATION

STAKEHOLDERS, ACTORS, RELATIONS

Codes/Guidelines

Intermediaries

MCKEE & PORTER [2009: 17]

personal rights (of others) and handling of personal identifiable information; right to informational self-determination (in Germany)

data security and privacy (national, EU)

scientific freedom; science/education related laws

third parties and providers, e.g. Terms of Use

LEGAL CONTEXT

Many ethical conflicts in online / digital

media research occur due to violations of

communication norms and principles (e.g.

reciprocity, authenticity, personhood)

online research = communication

Research

Ethical rules (codes), standards and principles Technical / methodological requirements Research experience, practices and object of study

Use (Online) communication ethics

(In)formal rules of play (e.g. netiquettes) Media literacy/competence

Technical and social frames of media practices Characteristics of digital media environments Terms of Use and providers’ rights Ethical position & paradigm Values (trust, responsibility, accountability)

hybrid contexts

DIGITAL MEDIA RESEARCH CONTEXTS

CONTEXTUAL DETAILS MATTER Object(s) of analysis: texts, aggregated bits of information,

or the persons themselves? use expectations of the online site and participants? sensitivity of the information collected? 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: 7F.]

Type of Data Type of Venues

and/or Contexts set of questions to

reflect and evaluate ethical practice

AoIR Guidelines [2012]

PRACTICAL JUDGEMENT IN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS [›PHRONESIS‹]

HTTP://S2.QUICKMEME.COM/IMG/2C/2CF739C4AAC76C9EFF549E105390EB22B899CBF161784E671A1F50AD6E63040F.JPG

A PROCESS ORIENTED APPROACH

HTTP://CT.FRA.BZ/OL/FZ/SW/I54/5/10/3/FRABZ-ONE-DOES-NOT-SIMPLY-START-THE-PROJECT-WITHOUT-CONSIDERING-ETHICS-9E0B60.JPG

»Different ethical issues become salient as the researcher develops research questions, seeks and gains access to individuals and/or information, manages and protects personally identifiable information, selects analytical tools, and represents the data through dissemination, in published reports, conference presentations, or other venues.«

MARKHAM & BUCHANAN [2012: 4]

HTTPS://WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/LLAMNUDS/8543376308/

Research Question Research Design Data Collection Data Analysis

Publication/Dissemination

Initial Stage Data Collection Data Analysis Publication

ACCESS TO SPACES & DATA

ACCESS TO PARTICIPANTS

VISIBILITY / AUTHENTICITY STRATEGIES

ANONYMITY VS AUTHORSHIP

ANONYMIZATION STRATEGIES

(INTER)ACTION VS. ARTIFACTS

VOLUNTARINESS / INFORMED CONSENT

DATA SECURITY / STORAGE

DO NO HARM-PRINCIPLE

TRANSPARENCY | DISCLOSURE | RECIPROCITY

INHERENT BIASES

When in the research process – and by whom

– is consent required?

Object of Study: actions/practices vs artifacts/text

Accessibility and/or sensitivity of data and information

Expectations of the users, e.g. regarding publicity/privacy of information/behaviour, …

OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT

Visual heuristic to support ethical decision-making; in: MCKEE & PORTER [2009: 132/136]

»it is not only […] a technology, an infrastructure, which

is simply there–it is appropriated and has a specific

meaning to 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.«

PhD Candidate studying self-representation in SNS; in: HEISE [2013]

USERS’ PERSPECTIVES

Goal: protecting individual/group privacy and personal identifiable information

Potential risks: de-anonymization due to traceability of data, …

Possible approaches: »Data Fabrication« [MARKHAM 2012], »visual paraphrases«, word clouds etc.

Which degree of anonymization is required?

PUBLICATION OF RESULTS / DATA

in: HEISE & SCHMIDT [2014]

CONCLUSION

»There cannot be a blanket, whole cloth approach to Internet Research ethics.«

MCKEE & PORTER [2009: 7]

Process oriented ethical perspective as …

basis of research design and (individual/group) practice sensitivity, deliberative process

means to improve your research, e.g. in regard to project management (planning/adjusting), quality of methods/data, impact (trust, responsibility), transparency, accountability

flexible, adjustable case and context sensitive framework to anticipate, address and evaluate (potential) ethical dimensions of research

RESOURCES

Guidelines MARKHAM/BUCHANAN [2012]: AoIR Recommendations (aoir.org) NESH [2015]: Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research (etikkom.no) ESOMAR/GRBN [2015]: Online Research Guideline (esomar.org) BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY [2013]: Ethics Guidelines for Internet-

mediated Research

Literature ALIM [2014]: Ethics & automated data retraction from Social Media ZIMMER [2010]: Ethics & Facebook, private/public data, publication MCKEE/PORTER [2009]: Ethics of Internet Research (case based approach) MARKHAM/BAYM [2009]: qualitative Internet methodology (challenges) HEISE/SCHMIDT [2014]: ethics of online research [GER] DZEYK [2001]: ethical dimensions of online research [GER] RIVERS/LEWIS [2014]: Ethical research standards in a world of big data.

Nele Heise, M.A.

University of Hamburg | Journalism and Mass Communication Studies

Graduate School Media & Communication Hamburg

@neleheise

nele.heise@wiso.uni-hamburg.de

THANK YOU.

ADM (2014). Richtlinie für Untersuchungen in den und mittels der Sozialen Medien (Soziale Medien Richtlinie). https://www.adm-ev.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFS/R11_D.pdf.

ALIM, S. (2014). An initial exploration of ethical research practices regarding automated data extraction from online social media user profiles. First Monday, 19(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.5382.

BORGATTI, S. P.; MOLINA, J.L. (2002). Ethical and Strategic Issues in Organizational Social Network Analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 337-349. http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/papers/ethics.pdf.

BOYD, D.; CRAWFORD, K. (2012). Critical questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.

BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY (2013). Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/inf206-guidelines-for-internet-mediated-research.pdf.

BURGESS, J.; BRUNS, A. (2012): Twitter Archives and the Challenges of ›Big Social Data‹ for Media and Communication Research. M/C Journal, 15 (5). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/561.

CAPURRO, R.; PINGEL, C.: (2002). Ethical issues of online communication research. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2002), 189-194.

DIENER, E.; CRANDALL, R. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

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. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/2424/1/ethdimon.pdf.

ELGESEM, D. (2002). What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 195–203.

ESS, C.(2007). Internet research ethics. In: Joinson, A.; Mckenna, K.; Postmes, T.; Reips, U. (Eds.): The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 91–107). Oxford: University Press.

EYNON, R.; SCHROEDER, R.; FRY, J. (2009). New Techniques in Online Research. Challenges for Research Ethics. 21st Century Society 4 (2), 187-199.

FRAAS, C.; MEIER, S.; PENTZOLD, C. (2012). Online-Kommunikation. Grundlagen, Praxisfelder und Methoden. Wien: Oldenbourg Verlag.

HAMILTON, R. J.; BOWERS, B. J. (2006). Internet Recruitment and E-Mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Health Research, 16 (6), 821-835.

HEISE, N. (2013). “Doing it for real”. Authentizität als kommunikationsethische Voraussetzung onlinebasierter Forschung. In: Emmer, M.; Filipovic, A.; Schmidt, J.-H.; Stapf, I. (Eds.): Authentizität in der computervermittelten Kommunikation (pp. 88-109). Weinheim: Juventa.

References

HEISE, N. (2015). Big Data – small problems? Ethische Dimensionen der Forschung mit Online-Kommunikationsspuren. In: A. Maireder, J. Ausserhofer, C. Schumann, M. Taddicken (Eds.): Digitale Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 39-58). Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.17174/dcr.v2.3.

HEISE, N.; SCHMIDT, J.-H. (2014). Ethik der Onlineforschung. In: M. Welker, M. Taddicken, J.-H. Schmidt, N. Jackob (Eds.): Handbuch Online-Forschung (pp. 519-539). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.

MCKEE, H.; PORTER, J. (2009). The Ethics of Internet Research. A Rhetorical, Case-Based Process. New York u.a.: Peter Lang.

MARKHAM, A. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 15 (3), 334-353.

MARKHAM, A.; BUCHANAN, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (version 2.0). http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.

NESH (2015). Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research. https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/ethical-guidelines-for-internet-research/.

NISSENBAUM, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157.

RIVERS, C.M.; LEWIS, B.L. (2014). Ethical research standards in a world of big data. F1000Research, 3(38). http://f1000research.com/articles/3-38/v2.

ROBARD, B. (2013). Friending Participants: Managing the Researcher–Participant Relationship on Social Network Sites. Young, 21(3), 217–235.

SCHMIDT, J.-H. (2009). Braucht das Web 2.0 eine eigene Forschungsethik? Zeitschrift für Kommunikationsökologie und Medienethik 11(2), 38-42.

STROHM KITCHENER, K.; KITCHENER, R. F. (2009). Social Research Ethics. Historical and Philosophical Issues. In: Mertens, Donna M.; Ginsberg, Pauline E. (Eds.): The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 5-22). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

TREVISAN, F.; REILLY, P. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas in Researching Social Media Campaigns on Sensitive Personal Issues. Paper presented at the 4th European Communication Conference, October 2012, Istanbul.

VIS, F. (2013). A critical reflection on Big Data: Considering APIs, researchers and tools as data makers. First Monday, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210%2Ffm.v18i10.4878.

WILLIAMS, F.; RICE, R.; ROGERS, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new media. New York u.a.: Free Press.

ZIMMER, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research on Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313-326.

References