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

Abstract

This article takes as its field of interest education-related research that is conducted online. It engages directly with issues concerning ethical research conduct when investigating online practices, with reference to studies whose data is drawn solely from cyberspaces, as well as to studies that include an Internet-based investigation component (e.g. studies of what children do when participating in online social spaces outside school, compared with what they do in class in terms of Internet and computer use). The aim of this article is to develop a set of principles that will serve as a starting point for developing guidelines for ethical online research within education arenas. In keeping with this aim, the article is organised in the first instance by addressing front end, in process and back end ethical concerns within the research process. These 'points' of focus are applied directly to what can be called 'bearers of moral consequences'; that is, groups of people or communities most directly affected by ethical decisions in a given study. In the present case, 'the researched' or study participants are examined first, followed by the 'researcher's craft' and her responsibilities toward the research community as an effective practitioner of research relevant to education. These two sections are followed by a related discussion of ethical concerns and responsibilities where two other bearers of moral consequences are concerned: supervisors and their graduate students, and consumers of research. The article concludes with three maxims developed from these discussions that can act as useful guides in making decisions where ethical conduct, education research and cyberspace are concerned.

Ethical Dilemmas Within Online Literacy Research

“…Black (2008) described having two separate accounts on Fanfiction.net: one for her fanfiction writer identity and one for her researcher identity. However, Knobel (2003) decided to utilize a single account on eBay, in part to position herself as an experienced user of the space when she approached potential research participants. Regardless of which approach a researcher chooses, establishing a consistent practice of presentation within a networked public remains important.…”

“…Guided by law and policy, institutional review boards (IRBs) protect both research participants and researchers (Creswell, 2015), but board members are not always knowledgeable about the ethical concerns particular to online research. Most of the discussion of the ethics of online research focuses on: “(1) the distinction between public and private spaces; (2) obtaining informed consent from study participants; and (3) the assurance of participants’ anonymity in research publications” (Knobel, 2003, p. 190). These discussions, and the related decisions of IRBs (known in some countries as human subjects review boards or university ethics committees), while necessary, often do not account for the reality and contextual complexity of contemporary literacy research.…”

Conducting Empirical Research in 3D Virtual Worlds: Experiences from two projects in Second Life

“…The principles are not meant to be prescriptive guidelines, but these are our reflections. For purposes of heuristic convenience, we use the framework similar to the one proposed by Knobel (2003) to describe the research process shown in Figure 1.…”

“…Research design: A well-designed study (Knobel, 2003) should be grounded in a meaningful problem and should be framed by a well-formed and manageable research question and a workable theory or set of theories; it should involve a careful selection of data collection and data analysis tools and techniques that will produce the kinds of data and outcomes required to address the research questions. A well-planned study should also indicate the time the participants will need to commit to, whether the data collection will occur in two or three stages (e.g.…”

“…Dissemination of the research outcomes: Researchers are duty bound to represent the study participants fairly, respectfully and with dignity; for example, any transcript used in any reports or papers describing the research should have any grammatical or spelling mistakes corrected (Knobel, 2003).…”