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

Information Communication and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1131-1146

  Trevisan, Filippo ^a   Reilly, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

disability; ethics; online politics; research methods; sensitive issues; social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905121209     PISSN: 1369118X     EISSN: 14684462     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.889188     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Barnett, J., & Hammond, S. (1999). Representing disability in charity promotions. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 309-314. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199907/08)9:4309:AID-CASP5153.0.CO;2-7
2. Baym, N., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56, 320-329. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705200
3. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Black, L., Brukhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2011). Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation. In P. Bucy & L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 323-345). New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 228-241. doi:10.1177/0894439303262561
7. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 662-679. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
8. British Psychological Society. (2007). Report of the working party on conducting research on the internet. Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online Retrieved from Oxford University http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/curec/documents/internetresearch
9. British Sociological Association. (2002). Statement of ethical practice for the British Sociological Association. Retrieved from Sociology Central: http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4bsoce.pdf
10. Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 217-231. doi:10.1023/A:1021316409277
11. Chadwick, A. (2012). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. In S. Coleman & P. Shane (Eds.), Connecting democracy: Online consultations and the flow of political communication (pp. 45-73). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
12. Cui, W., Wu, Y., Liu, S., Wei, F., Zhou, M., & Qu, H. (2010, March). Context preserving dynamic word cloud visualization. Paper presented at the IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, Taipei.
13. Drake, R. (2002). Disabled people, voluntary organisations and participation in policy making. Policy & Politics, 30, 373-385. doi:10.1332/030557302760094739
14. Ess, C., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee. (2002). Ethical decision making and internet research. Retrieved from Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
15. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323, 1103-1105. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
16. Farrimond, H. (2013). Doing ethical research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Fawcett, B. (2000). Feminist perspectives on disability. Harlow: Pearson Education.
18. Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people. Washington, DC: World Rehabilitation Fund.
19. Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.
20. Graham, T. (2012). Beyond "political" communicative spaces: Talking politics on the Wife Swap discussion forum. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9, 31-45. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.635961
21. Hopkins, D., & King, G. (2010). A method of automated, nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 229-247. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20647981
22. King, S. A. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12, 119-128. doi: 10.1080/713856145
23. Kitchener, K. S., & Kitchener, R. F. (2009). Social science research ethics: Historical and philosophical issues. In D. Mertens & P. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 5-22). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
24. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: SAGE.
25. Krotoski, A. K. (2012). Data-driven research: Open data opportunities for growing knowledge, and ethical issues that arise. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 25, 28-32. doi:10.1629/2048-7754.25.1.28
26. Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: SAGE.
27. Lilleker, D., & Jackson, N. (2011). Political campaigning, elections, and the internet: Comparing the US, UK, France and Germany. London: Routledge.
28. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: SAGE.
29. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and the internet (pp. 211-239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Markham, A. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry into ambiguous internet contexts. Information. Communication, and Society, 15, 334-353. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.641993
31. Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee. (2012). Ethical decision making and internet research - Version 2.0. Retrieved from Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
32. Marshall, C., & Shipman, F. M. (2011). Attitudes about institutional archiving of social media. In Society for Imaging Science and Technology, Proceedings of Archiving 2011. Retrieved from Microsoft Research: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=147623
33. Marwick, A. E. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
34. McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative Report, 15, 630-643. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf
35. Mercer, G. (2002). Emancipatory research. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver, & L. Barton (Eds.), Disability studies today (pp. 228-249). Cambridge: Polity.
36. Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., & Quinn, K. (2008). Fightin' words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis, 16, 372-403. doi:10.1093/pan/mpn018
37. Morris, J. (1992). Personal and political: A feminist perspective on researching physical disability. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 7, 157-66. doi:10.1080/02674649266780181
38. Morris, J. (2005). Citizenship and disabled people: A scoping paper prepared for the Disability Rights Commission. Retrieved from University of Leeds Centre for Disability Studies: www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/morris/
39. Neuhaus, F., & Webmoor, T. (2012). Agile ethics for massified research and visualization. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 43-65. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.616519
40. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, politics, and the integrity of social life. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
41. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Procter, R., Vis, F., & Voss, A. (2013). Reading the riots on Twitter: Methodological innovation for the analysis of big data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 197-214. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.774172
43. Ridderstrøm, H. (2003). Ethical challenges in research on youth's personal home pages. In M. Thorseth (Ed.), Applied ethics in internet research (pp. 155-170). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology Press.
44. Roulstone, A. (2011, July). Coalition disability policy: A consolidation of neo-liberalism or benign pragmatism? Presented at the Social Policy Association conference, Lincoln.
45. Ryfe, D. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 72-93. doi:10.1080/00909880500420226
46. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
47. Sharf, B. (1999). Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the internet (pp. 243-256). London: SAGE.
48. Sinclair, J., & Cardew-Hall, M. (2008). The folksonomy tagcloud: When is it useful? Journal of Information Science, 34, 15-29. doi:10.1177/0165551506078083
49. Social Research Association. (2003). Ethical guidelines. Retrieved from The Social Research Association. Retrieved October 7, 2013, from http://www.the-sra.org.uk/documents/pdfs/ethics03.pdf
50. Sveningsson-Elm, M. (2009). How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative internet research? In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 69-87). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
51. Taylor-Gooby, P., & Stoker, G. (2011). The coalition programme: A new vision for Britain or politics as usual?. The Political Quarterly, 82, 4-15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2011.02169.x
52. Thomas, C. (2010). Medical sociology and disability theory. In G. Scambler & S. Scambler (Eds.), New directions in the sociology of chronic and disabling conditions (pp. 37-56). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Townsend, A. (2013). Action research: The challenges of understanding and changing practice. Maidenhead: The Open University Press.
54. Trevisan, F. (2012). ICTs for empowerment? Disability organisations and the democratizing potential of Web 2.0 in Scotland. In A. Manoharan & M. Holzer (Eds.), E-Governance and civic engagement: Factors and determinants of e-democracy (pp. 381-404). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
55. Trevisan, F. (2013). Disabled people, digital campaigns, and contentious politics: Upload successful or connection failed? In R. Scullion, D. Lilleker, D. Jackson & R. Gerodimos (Eds.), The media, political participation, and empowerment (pp. 175-191). London: Routledge.
56. Vromen, A., & Coleman, W. (2013). Online campaigning organizations and storytelling strategies: GetUp! in Australia. Policy & Internet, 5, 1-25. doi:10.1002/poi3.23
57. Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 205-216. doi:10.1023/A:1021368426115
58. Watson, N. (1998). Enabling identity: Disability, self and citizenship. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability reader: Social science perspectives (pp. 147-162). London: Continuum.
59. Watson, N. (2012). Researching disablement. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 93-105). London: Routledge.
60. White, M. (2002). Representations or people? Retrieved from www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/projects_ethics.html
61. Whiteman, N. (2012). Undoing ethics: Rethinking practice in online research. London: Springer.
62. Woliver, L. (1993). From outrage to action: The politics of grassroot dissent. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
63. Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalisation and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14, 244-261. doi:10.1177/1461444811410679
64. Zimmer, M. (2010). But the data is already public: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12, 313-325. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5