Agile Ethics for Massified Research and Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, the authors examine some of the implications of born-digital research environments by discussing the emergence of data mining and the analysis of social media platforms. With the rise of individual online activity in chat rooms, social networking sites and micro-blogging services, new repositories for social science research have become available in large quantities. Given the changes of scale that accompany such research, both in terms of data mining and the communication of results, the authors term this type of research 'massified research'. This article argues that while the private and commercial processing of these new massive data sets is far from unproblematic, the use by academic practitioners poses particular challenges with respect to established ethical protocols. These involve reconfigurations of the external relations between researchers and participants, as well as the internal relations that compose the identities of the participant, the researcher and that of the data. Consequently, massified research and its outputs operate in a grey area of undefined conduct with respect to these concerns. The authors work through the specific case study of using Twitter's public Application Programming Interface for research and visualization. To conclude, this article proposes some potential best practices to extend current procedures and guidelines for such massified research. Most importantly, the authors develop these under the banner of 'agile ethics'. The authors conclude by making the counterintuitive suggestion that researchers make themselves as vulnerable to potential data mining as the subjects who comprise their data sets: a parity of practice.

Every little helps? YouTube, sousveillance and the ‘anti-Tesco’ riot in Stokes Croft

“…Recent scholarship has focused on the need to develop new strategies for the anonymisation of social media datasets, particularly when it is not possible to obtain informed consent from users prior to the use of the data (Zimmer, 2010). These issues were addressed by adopting an ethical stance which acknowledged the rights of these 'data producers' as human participants and the responsibilities of researchers to adopt working practices that protect their privacy when appropriate to do so (Neuhaus and Webmoor, 2012;Whiteman, 2012). Previous research conducted on YouTube has tended to focus on less sensitive issues and commentators have been identified through the publication of their username (Antony and Thomas, 2010;Lee, 2012).…”

Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks

“…Given the controversial nature of the proposed welfare reforms launched by the UK ConservativeÐLiberal Democrat coalition government in 2010, the view prevailed that the omission of the naturally occurring discussion on these Ôsemi-publicÕ Facebook pages from the study would have in fact equated to the ÔsilencingÕ of disabled peopleÕs voices. In other words, a decision taken in good faith, and with the wellbeing of participants in mind, would have paradoxically resulted in more harm than good, mirroring some of the patronizing practices that have traditionally hindered the emergence of the perspectives of disabled people in both policymaking processes and political organizations (Drake, 2002;Morris, 2005). Rather, the potential for this type of analysis to contribute to a fairer representation of disabled peopleÕs involvement in online politics surpassed the risks associated with the use of this content.…”

Preserving the Voices of Revolution: Examining the Creation and Preservation of a Subject-Centered Collection of Tweets from the Eighteen Days in Egypt

“…In short, "we need to place data generation on more of an equal footing with final outputs; to think of it in terms of authorship." 22 …”