Introduction: A Debate about the Ethics of Fair Practices for Collecting Social Science Data in Cyberspace

Abstract

Most of us prefer ª doing rightº to the opposite. But sometimes it is not easy to determine either what constitutes right conduct or how to do it. In this special ethics issue of TIS, scholars involved in cyberspace research explore the problem of ª doing rightº in terms of research subjects. The participants here draw from their own research and the ethical dilemmas they confronted. The offerings illustrate how diverse ethical theories can lead to different views over which, or even whether, new formal guidelines are needed for on-line research.Most of us prefer ª doing rightº to the opposite. But sometimes it is not easy to determine either what constitutes right conduct or how to do it. In this special ethics issue of TIS, scholars involved in cyberspace research explore the problem of ª doing rightº in terms of research subjects.In Future Shock, Alvin Toffler observed that the future arrives too soon and in the wrong order. If the future ª happenedº in the right order, it would mean that our ability to understand and respond to changes would come before, rather than after, events occurred. If the future had the decency not to arrive too soon, we could better prepare for it by predicting potential problems and proactively identifying possible solutions. One of the problems arising from the future-is-now expansion of computer technology is establishing the ethics by which scholars ought proceed when venturing into cyberspace.Although some consider the term ª cyberspaceº a hackneyed one, it remains useful to denote something that happens with people using computers. By now, most of us realize that cyberspace is not a specific geographic or spatial location. Cyberspace connotes interaction with others by means of a personal computer and a modem. As we sit at the computer keyboard and magically etch our ASCII for others to see, we feel as if we leave it somewhere, and that ª somewhereº is simply a conceptually metaphoric way of identifying the experience of electronic communication. Cyberspace includes a variety of forums and activities ranging from bulletin board systems (BBSs); electronic mail; public access systems where people meet, shop, argue, heal, fall in and out of love, carouse, or 107 Jim Thomas is a professor of Sociology/Criminal Justice at Northern Illinois University, and has studied prison culture since 1980 and computer culture since 1988. He is co-editor of Computer underground Digest, an electronic newsletter addressing legal, cultural, and political issues of online life. His interests include methodological ethics in qualitative research.

Using the Online Medium for Discursive Research About People With Disabilities

“…Furthermore, Mann and Stewart (2000) mentioned how the benefits of anonymous communication for researchers may increase access to socially marginalized communities, such as people with disabilities. Although there is vast potential and many benefits for carrying out discursive research online, the particular settings for online research raise new and complex ethical issues (Thomas, 1996).…”

Virtual Community Presence in Internet Relay Chatting

“…While researchers in the field of computer‐mediated communication are deeply concerned about the ethical issues of conducting research on human interactions in cyberspace, they have difficulty reaching agreement on common ethical guidelines (Allen, 1996; Bohlefeld, 1996; Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997; Herring, 1996; King, 1996; Reid 1996; Paccagnella, 1997; Thomas, 1996a, 1996b; Waskul, 1996). Even if common ethical guidelines exist, following the guidelines to the letter does not automatically result in responsible and ethical research.…”

Rants, Ratings and Representation: ethical issues in researching online social practices

“…In our paper we defined moral consequences in terms of those effects or outcomes for the good or harm of human beings within areas of human activity where people can reasonably be assigned rights and obligations (cf. Thomas, 1996, Warnock, 1970. In our argument we identified what we called bearers of moral consequences; that is, those people (and sometimes things, such as policy decisions, study outcomes and recommendations, or education programs) that need to be considered in any ethical/moral stocktake.…”