Undoing ethics: Rethinking practice in online research

Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-154

  Whiteman, Natasha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955355718     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1827-6     Document Type: Book

References (259)

1. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2006). Multidisciplinary research ethics review: Is it feasible?International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(5), 405.
2. Allen, C. (1996). What&’s wrong with the ‘Golden Rule&’? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace. The Information Society, 12(2), 175-188. Available online: http://jthomasniu.org/Tis/go.christin.html
3. Baym, N., & Markham, A. (2009). Introduction: Making smart choices on shifting ground. In Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
4. Berry, D. M. (2004). Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation: An open source approach. Internet Research, 14(4), 323-332.
5. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Calvey, D. (2008). The art and politics of covert research: Doing ‘Situated Ethics’ in the field. Sociology, 42(5), 905-918.
7. Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2007). Predatory vs. Dialogic ethics: Constructing an illusion or ethical practice as the core of research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 315-335. Cavanagh, A. (1999). Behaviour in public? Ethics in online ethnography. Cybersociology, (6). Available online: http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/6/cavanagh.html
8. Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
9. Clark, M. C., & Sharf, B. F. (2007). The dark side of truth(s). Ethical dilemmas in researching the personal. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 319-416.
10. Consalvo, M. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press
11. Dingwall, R. (2006). An exercise in fatuity: Research governance and the emasculation of HSR. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 11(4), 193-194.
12. Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Mathematical myths/pedagogic texts. London: Falmer Press.
13. Dowling, P. (2009). Sociology as method: Departures from the forensics of culture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
14. Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research/reading research: Re-interrogating education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
15. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 525(10), 1103-1105.
16. Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Contestations and effects of cheating in a tween virtual world: “Stealing from Grandma” or generating cultural knowledge? Games and Culture, 5(1), 64-87.
17. Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the internet: A report of a workshop June 10-11, 1999. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available online: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf.
18. Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211-225.
19. Humphreys, S., Fitzgerald, B., Banks, J., & Suzor, N. (2005). Fan-based production for computer games: User-led innovation, the ‘Drift of Value&’ and intellectual property rights. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 114, 16-29. Available online: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=010273434967423;res=IELHSS.
20. Jenkins, P. (2001/2003). Beyondtolerance: Childpornography on the internet. New York/London: New York University Press.
21. Johns, M. D., Hal, G. J., & Crowell, T. L. (2004). Surviving the IRB review: Institutional guidelines and research strategies. In M. D. Johns, S. Chen, & G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 105-124). New York: Peter Lang.
22. King, S. A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119-128.
23. Knobel, M. (2002). Rants, ratings and representation: Issues ofethics, validity and reliability in researching online social practices. Draft paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 3 April, 2002. Available online: http://www.geocities.com/c.lankshear/ethics.html.
24. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
25. Mac Dougall, R. (2010). eBay ethics: Simulating civility today, for the ‘Digital Democracies’ of tomorrow. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(2), 235-244.
26. Macfarlane, B. (2009). Researching with integrity: The ethics of academic inquiry. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
27. Markham, A. N. (2006). Ethic as method, method as ethic: A case for reflexivity in qualitative ICT research. Journal of Information Ethics, 15(2), 37-54.
28. Mason, J. (2004). Ethics in qualitative research (book review). Sociology, 58(5), 1070-1071.
29. Mattingly, C. (2005). Towards a vulnerable ethics of research practice. Health: An interdisciplinary Journal of the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine, 9(4), 453-471.
30. Mauther, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., & Miller, T. (Eds.). (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
31. McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 711-749. Available online: www.writing. ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/McKee_Article.pdf.
32. McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). The ethics of Internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
33. McKeown, R. E., & Weed, D. L. (2004). Ethical choices in survey research. Social and Preventative Medicine, 49(1), 67-68.
34. Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 25, 2223-2234.
35. Oliver, P. (2003). The student&’s guide to research ethics (open up study skills). Buckingham: Open University Press.
36. Rimm, M. (1995). Marketing pornography on the information highway: A survey of 917,410 images, descriptions, short stories, and animations downloaded 8.5 million times by consumers in over 2000 cities in and territories. Georgetown Law Journal, 83, 1849-1934.
37. Roberts, L., et al. (2003). Conducting ethical research online: Respect for individuals, identities and the ownership of worlds. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 62-78). Hershey/London: Idea Group Inc.
38. Sharf, B. F. (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 net (pp. 243-256). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
39. Sieber, J. E. (2004). Using our best judgment in conducting human research. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 297-304.
40. Sikes, P. (2008). At the eye of the storm: An academic(‘s) experience of moral panic. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2), 235-253.
41. Simons, H., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
42. Thomas, J. (1996). When cyber-research goes wrong: The ethics of the Rimm ‘Cyberporn&’ study. The Information Society, 12(2), 189-197. Available online: http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~jthomas/ethics/tis/go.jt2.
43. Thomas, J. (2004). Reexamining the ethics of internet research: Facing the challenge of overzealous oversight. In M. D. Johns, S. L. Chen, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 187-202). New York: Peter Lang.
44. Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 205-216.
45. White, M. (2002). Representations or people? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 249-266.
46. White, C., & Bailey, C. (2004). Feminist knowledge and ethical concerns: Towards a geography of situated ethics. Espace, Populations, Societes, 1, 131-141.
47. Whiteman, N. (2007). The establishment, maintenance and destabilisation offandom: A study of two online communities and an exploration of issues pertaining to internet research. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London Available online: http://homepage.mac.com/paulcdowling/ioe/studentswork/whiteman(2007).pdf.
48. Whiteman, N. (2008a). Learning at the cutting edge? Help-seeking and status in online videogame fan sites. Information Technology, Education and Society, 9(1), 7-26.
49. Whiteman, N. (2008b). Homesick for Silent Hill: Modalities of nostalgia in fan responses to Silent Hill 4: The room. In L. Taylor & Z. Whalen (Eds.), Playing the past: History and nostalgia in videogames (pp. 32-49). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
50. Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and contingency: Maintaining ethical stances in research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 6-22.
51. Wiles, R., Coffey, A., Robison, J., & Prosser, J. (2010). Ethical regulation and visual methods: Making visual research impossible or developing good practice? (ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Working Paper Series), eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/812/2/ethical_regula- tion_and_visual_methods.pdf.
52. Zimmer, M. (2009). “But the data is already public!”: On the ethics of research in facebook. In Open conference systems, internet research 10.0, Available online: http://ocs.sfu.ca/aoir/index.php/ir/10/paper/view/168. Last accessed 12 November 2009.
53. Brown, A., & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing research/reading research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
54. Buchanan, E. A. (Ed.). (2003). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey: Idea Group.
55. Bulmer, M. (1982). Social research ethics: An examination ofthe merits ofcovertparticipant observation. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
56. Cavazos, E. A., & Morin, G. (1994). Cyberspace and the law: Your rights and duties in the on-line world. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
57. Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2005). The impact of verbatim quotations on research users: Qualitative exploration. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York. Available online http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/sstreps.html#2005.
58. Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social research: Researchers&’ views. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York. Available online http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/sstreps.html.
59. Dowling, P. (2009). Sociology as method: Departuresfrom theforensics ofculture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
60. Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research/reading research: Re-interrogating education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
61. Finn, P., & Jakobsson, M. (2007). Designing and conducting Phishing experiments. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Special Issue on Usability and Security. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.69.6779.
62. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
63. Herring, S. C. (1996). Linguistic and critical research on computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168. Available online: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/tis.1996.pdf.
64. Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet. Oxford: Berg.
65. Johns, M. D., Hal, G. J., & Crowell, T L. (2004). Surviving the IRB review: Institutional guidelines and research strategies. In M. D. Johns, S. Chen, G. Jon Hah (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 105-124). New York: Peter Lang.
66. Jones, S. (1999). Doing internet research: Critical issues and methodsfor examining the net. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE.
67. Kimmel, A. J. (1988). Ethics and values in applied social research. Newbury: SAGE.
68. King, S. A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119-128.
69. Kitchin, H. (2003). The tri-council policy statement and research in cyberspace: Research ethics, the internet, and revising a ‘Living Document&’. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 397-418.
70. Kitchin, H. A. (2007). Research ethics and the internet: Negotiating Canada&’s tri-councilpolicy statement. Halifax/Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
71. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: SAGE.
72. McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. College Composition and Communication, 59, 711-749. Available online: http://www.writing. ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/McKee_Article.pdf.
73. Rowe, M. (2007). Tripping over molehills: Ethics and the ethnography of police research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(1), 37-48.
74. Smyth, M., & Williamson, E. (Eds.). (2004). Researchers and their ‘subjects&’: Ethics, power, knowledge and consent. Bristol: Policy Press.
75. Stern, S. R. (2003). Encountering distressing information in online research: A consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities. New Media & Society, 5(2), 246-266.
76. Stern, S. (2004). Studying adolescents online: A consideration of ethical issues. In E. Buchanan (Ed.) Readings in virtual research ethics, (pp. 274-287). Hershey and London: Information Science Publishing.
77. Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research. The Information Society, 12, 129-139.
78. Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and contingency: Maintaining ethical stances in research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 6-22.
79. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417-428.
80. Wong, L. M. (1998). The ethics of rapport: Institutional safeguards, resistance, and betrayal. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 178-199. http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4Z2/178.
81. Allen, A. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.
82. Allen, C. (1996). What&’s wrong with the ‘golden rule&’? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace. The Information Society, 12(2), 175-188.
83. Bailey, S. (2005). Media audiences and identity: Self-construction in thefan experience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
84. Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject: Conceptual, methodological and ethical dimension. Journal of Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 233-248.
85. Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places. APA Journal, 67(1), 9-24.
86. Barnes, S. B. (2004). Issues of attribution and identification in online social research. In M. D Johns, S. Chen, G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 203-222). New York: Peter Lang.
87. Bassett, E. H., & O&’Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of Internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 233-247.
88. Baym, N. (2000). Tunc in, log on: Soaps, fandom, andonline community. London: Sage.
89. Black, R. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English languages learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118-128.
90. Boyd, D. (2005). Blogging outloud: Shifts in public voice. Paper presented at LITA conference, October 1, 2005. Available online: http://www.danah.org/papers/LITA.html.
91. Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, orwhat? Available online: http://kt.flexible- learning.net.au/tkt2007/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/boyd.pdf
92. Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook&’s privacy trainwreck. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 13-20.
93. British Sociological Association. (2002). Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association, available online: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Practice.htm.
94. Bromseth, J. C. H. (2002). Public places - public activities? Paper presented at InterMedia, University of Oslo, April 8, 2002. Published in Researching ICTs in Context, A. Morrison (Ed.). Available online: http://www.intermedia.uio.no/konferanser/skikt-02/docs/Researching_ ICTs_in_context-Ch3-Bromseth.pdf.
95. Brownlow, C., & O&’Dell, L. (2002). Ethical issues for qualitative research in on-line communities. Disability & Society, 17(6), 685-694.
96. Busse, K. (2009). Attention economy, layered publics, and research ethics. FlowTV, 9(14). Available online: http://flowtv.org/2009/05/attention-economy-layered-publics-and-research- ethics-kristina-busse-university-of-south-alabama/.
97. Cavanagh, A. (1999). Behaviour in public?: Ethics in online ethnography. Cybersociology, Issue 6, Available online: http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/6/cavanagh.html.
98. Davis, M. (1990). City ofquartz: Excavating thefuture in LosAngeles. New York: Verso.
99. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., & Liamputtong, P. (2008). Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
100. Ess, C. (2001). AoIR ethics working committee - a preliminary report. Available online: aoir.org/reports/ethics.html.
101. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323(10), 1103-1105.
102. Faberow, N. (1963). Taboo topics. New York: Atherton Press.
103. Frankel, M. S., & Siang S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet: A report of a workshop June 10-11, 1999, Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available online: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf.
104. Gatson, S. N., & Zweerink, A. (2004). Ethnography online: ‘Natives&’ practising and inscribing community. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 179-200.
105. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior inpublicplaces: Notes on the social organization ofgatherings. New York: Free Press.
106. Gray, Jonathan (2005). Antifandom and the Moral Text: Television Without Pity and Textual Dislike. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(7), 840-858.
107. Guess, R. (2001). Public goods, private goods. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
108. Herring, S. C. (1996). Linguistic and critical research on computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168.
109. Hills, M. (2002). Fan cultures. London: Routledge.
110. Hodge, M. J. (2006). Comment: The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Issues on the ‘New’ Internet. Facebook.com and Myspace.com. Southern Illinois University Law School Journal, 2006, 31, 95-12
111. Homan, R. (1980). The ethics of covert methods. The British Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 46-59.
112. Homan, R. (1991). The ethics ofsocial research. London/New York: Longman.
113. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2004). ‘Go away’: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. The Information Society, 20(2), 127-139.
114. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman A. (2005). Using empirical data to reason about Internet research ethics. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW) Paris, France, 287-306.
115. Ito, M., O&’Day, V. L., Adler, A., Linde, C., & Mynatt, E. D. (2001). Making a place for seniors on the net: SeniorNet, senior identity, and the digital divide. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.1404&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
116. Jenkins, H. (1995). Do you enjoy making the rest of us feel stupid?: alt.tv.twinpeaks, the trickster author, and viewer mastery. In D. Lavery (Ed.), Full of secrets: Critical approaches to Twin Peaks. Detroit: Wayne University Press.
117. Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley/California: California University Press.
118. King, S. A. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119-128.
119. Kirkpatrick, M. (2009a). The day has come: Facebook pushes people to go public. ReadWriteWeb, December 9, 2009, http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_pushes_people_to_go_ public.php.
120. Kirkpatrick, M. (2009b). Why facebook changed its privacy setting. ReadWriteWeb, December 10, 2009, http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_facebook_chenged_privacy_policies.php.
121. LaRose, R., & Rifon, N. (2006). Your privacy is assured - of being disturbed: Websites with and without privacy seals. New Media & Society, 8(6), 1009-1029.
122. Langer, R., & Beckman S. C. (2005). Sensitive research topics: Netnography revisited, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 189-203.
123. Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage.
124. Lee, R. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (1993). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. In C. M. Renzetti & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Researching sensitive topics (pp. 3-13). Newbury Park: SAGE.
125. Macdonald, A. (1998). Uncertain Utopia: Science fiction media fandom & computer mediated communication. In C. Harris & A. Alexander (Eds.), Theorizing fandom: Fans, subculture and identity (pp. 131-152). Cresshill/New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.
126. Marx, G. T. (2001). Murky conceptual waters: The public and private. Ethics and Information Technology, 3, 157-169.
127. McCosker, H., Barnard A., & Gerber R. (2001). Undertaking sensitive research: Issues and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Article 22.
128. McCullagh, K. (2007). Blogs: A privacy perspective. Edinburgh: e-Science Institute. Presentation available online: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=karen_ mccullagh. Last accessed January 4, 2009.
129. Oreskovic, A. (2009). Facebook privacy revamp draws fire. Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/arti- cle/idUSTRE5B82F320091210?type=technologyNews.
130. Renzetti, C. M., & Lee R. M. (Eds.). (1993). Researching sensitive topics, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
131. Rawlins, W. K. (1998). Theorizing public and private domains and practices of communication: Introductory concerns. Communication Theory, 5(4), 369-380.
132. Roberts, L., et al. (2003). Conducting ethical research online: Respect for individuals, identities and the ownership of words. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 62-78). Hershey/London: Idea Group Inc.
133. Rosenberg, A. (2010). Virtual world research ethics and the private/public distinction. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), http://ijire.net/issue_3T/3_rosenberg.pdf
134. Sanghvi, R. (2006). Facebook gets a facelift. Tuesday, September 5, 2006, http://blog.facebook. com/blog.php?post=2207967130.
135. Seale, C., Charteris-Black, J., MacFarlane, A., & McPherson, A. (2010). Interviews and Internet forums: A comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 595-606.
136. Shils, E. (1982). Social inquiry and the autonomy of the individual. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social research ethics: An examination of the merits of covert participant observation (pp. 125-141). London: Macmillan.
137. Sixsmith, J., & Murray, C. D. (2001). Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of Internet posts and archives. Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 423-432.
138. Smith, K. M. C. (2004). ‘Electronic eavesdropping&’: The ethical issues involved in conducting a virtual ethnography. In M. D Johns, S. Chen, G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 223-238). New York: Peter Lang.
139. Snee, H. (2008). “Web 2.0 as a Social Science Research Tool,” Presented at The British Library, 4 November 2008. Paper available online http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/bldept/socsci/socint/web2/web2.pdf.
140. Social Research Association (SRA) (2003). Ethical Guidelines. Available online http://www.the- sra.org.uk/documents/pdfs/ethics03.pdf.
141. Spicker, P. (2007). Research without consent. Social Research Update, Issue 51, Winter 2007, 1-4. Available online: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU51.pdf. Last accessed April 21, 2008.
142. Spicker, P. (2011). Ethical covert research. Sociology, 45(1), 118-133.
143. Stern, S. R. (2009). A response to Malin Sveningsson. In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 94-98). Thousand Oaks/London: Sage.
144. 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: Sage.
145. Viegas, F. B. (2005). Bloggers&’ expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), Article 12, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/viegas.html.
146. Wakeford, N. (2003). The embedding of local culture in global communication: Independent internet cafes in London. New Media & Society, 5(3), 379-399.
147. Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 205-216.
148. Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research. The Information Society, 12, 129-139.
149. Wiles, R., et al. (2004). Informed consent in social research: A literature review. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Methods Paper Series Methods Paper No. 10, http://www.sociology.soton.ac.uk/Proj/Informed_Consent/litreview.rtf.
150. Wohlblatt, K. (1996). The sweetness of lurking. In A. Sondheim (Ed.), Being on line: Net subjectivity (pp. 36-38). New York: Lusitania Press.
151. Woo, J. (2006). The right not to be identified: Privacy and anonymity in the interactive media environment. New Media & Society, 5(6), 949-967.
152. Zimmer, M. (2009). “But the data is already public!”: On the ethics of research in facebook. Open Conference Systems, Internet Research 10.0. Available online: http://ocs.sfu.ca/aoir/index.php/ir/10/paper/view/168. Last accessed November 12, 2009
153. Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject: Conceptual, methodological and ethical dimension. Journal of Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 233-248.
154. Bassett, E. H., & O&’Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 233-247.
155. Berry, D. M. (2004). Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation: An open source approach. Internet Research, 14(4), 323-332.
156. Boehlefeld, S. (1996). Doing the right thing: Ethical cyberspace research. The Information Society, 12(2), 141-152.
157. Carter, D. (2005). Living in virtual communities: An ethnography of human relationships in cyberspace. Journal of Information Communication and Society, 8(2), 148-167.
158. Charlesworth, A. (2008). Understanding and managing legal issues in internet research. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 42-57). London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
159. Chin, B., & Gray, J. (2001). One ring to rule them all: Pre-viewers and pre-texts of the Lord of the Rings Film. Intensities: The Journal of Cult Media, 2. Available online: http://www.cult-media. com/issue2/Archingray.htm.
160. Crawford, S. P. (2004). Who&’s in charge of who I am? Identity and law online. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 211-229. Available online: http://scrawford.net/display/crawford%20 identity.pdf. Last accessed 12 Sept 2010.
161. Davies, B. (1997). The subject of post-structuralism: A reply to Alison Jones. Gender and Education, 9(3), 271-283.
162. Dibbell, J. (1993, December 21). A rape in cyberspace. Village Voice, pp. 36-42. Available online: http://www. sla.purdue.edu/people/engl/blackmon/rape.html.
163. Dibbell, J. (1998). My tiny life: Crime andpassion in a virtual world. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
164. Donath, J. (2000). Being real. In K. Goldberg (Ed.), The robot in the garden: telerobotics and telepistemology in the age of the internet (pp. 296-311). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Available online: http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/BeingReal/BeingReal.html.
165. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2005). Research Ethics Framework. Available online http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Re_Ethics_Frame_tcm6-11291. pdf.
166. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 525(10), 1103-1105.
167. Halliday, J., & Arthur, C. (2010, December 17 Friday). Known unknowns: Anonymous hierarchy emerges. The Guardian, p. 5. Available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-anonymous-hierarchy-emerges?INTCMP=SRCH.
168. Herring, S. C. (1996). Linguistic and critical research on computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168. Available online: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/tis.1996.pdf.
169. Homan, R. (1980). The ethics of covert methods. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 46-59.
170. Jones, A. (1997). Teaching post-structuralist feminist theory in education: Student resistances. Gender and Education, 9(3), 261-269.
171. Jordan, T. (1999). Cyberpower. London: Routledge.
172. Kendall, L. (1999). Recontextualising “Cyberspace”: Methodological considerations for on-line research. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 57-74). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
173. Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley: California University Press.
174. King, S. A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119-128.
175. Konstan, J. A., Simon Rosser, B. R., Ross, M. W., Stanton, J., & Edwards, W. (2005). The story of subject naught: A cautionary but optimistic tale of Internet survey research. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 10(2). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/konstan.html.
176. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks: How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available online: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SNS_Report_Final.pdf.pdf.
177. Lyman, P., & Wakeford, N. (1999). Introduction: Going into the virtual field. American Behavioural Scientist, 45(3), 359-376.
178. Markham, A. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space (ethnographic alternatives). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
179. Markham, A. (2003a). Representation in online ethnographies: A matter of context sensitivity. In S. Chen, J. Hall, & M. Johns (Eds.), Online social research: Theory, methods, and ethics (pp. 131-145). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
180. Markham, A. N. (2003b). Critical junctures and ethical choices in internet ethnography. In M. Thorseth (Ed.), Applied ethics in internet research (pp. 51-63). Trondheim: NTNU University Press.
181. Markham, A. (2004). Reconsidering self and other: Methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 793-820). London: SAGE.
182. Marks, A. (2007). Drug detection dogs and the growth of olfactory surveillance: Beyond the rule of law? Surveillance & Society, 4(3), 257-271.
183. Marks, A. (2008, March 31). Smells suspicious. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/31/internationalcrime.
184. Marx, G.T. (2002). ‘What&’s new about the ‘new surveillance&’? Classifying for change and continuity&’, Surveillance & Society 1(1): 9-29. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1. whatsnew.pdf.
185. McKee, H. A. (2008). Ethical and legal issues for writing researchers in an age of media convergence. Computers and Composition, 25, 104-122.
186. Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2001). The internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
187. Pearce, C., & Artemesia A.. (2009). Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
188. Pelletier, C., & Whiteman, N. (in press). Affiliation in the construction of fan identity: A comparison of face-to-face and virtual settings. In Ching, C. C., & B. J. Fdey (Eds.) Constructing the self in a digital world. To be published by Cambridge University Press.
189. Rutter, J., & Smith, G. (1999). Presenting the off-line self in an everyday, online environment. Paper presented at Identities in Action, University of Wales.
190. Sixsmith, J., & Murray, C. D. (2001). Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of internet posts and archives. Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 423-432.
191. Slater, D. (2002). Making things real: Ethics and order on the internet. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 227-245.
192. Stern, S. R. (2003). Encountering distressing information in online research: a consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities. New Media & Society, 5(2), 246-266.
193. Taylor, T. L. (1999). Life in virtual worlds: Plural existence, multimodalities, and other online research challenges. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 436-449.
194. Taylor T.L. (2002). Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In: Ralph Schroeder (ed), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London, Springer-Verlag, pp. 400-462.
195. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
196. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age ofthe Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
197. Turkle, S. (1996a). Constructions and reconstructions of the self in virtual reality. In T. Druckery (Ed.), Electronic culture: Technology and visual representation. Romford: Aperture.
198. Turkle, S. (1996b, January). Who am we? Wired (4.01), pp. 148-152.
199. Westmarland, L. (2001). Blowing the whistle on police violence. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 523-535.
200. White, M. (2002). Representations or people? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(2), 249-266.
201. Whiteman, N. (2007). The establishment, maintenance and destabilisation offandom: A study of two online communities and an exploration of issues pertaining to internet research. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Education, University of London. Available online: http://homepage.mac.com/paulcdowling/ioe/studentswork/whiteman(2007).pdf.
202. Wolfendale, J. (2007). My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 111-119.
203. Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles infield research (Qualitative research methods series 6). London/Newbury Park: Sage.
204. Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealths. (1999). Ethical guidelines for good research practice. http://www.theasa.org/ethics/guidelines.shtml.
205. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
206. Calvey, D. (2008). The art and politics of covert Research: Doing 'situated ethics&’ in the field. Sociology, 42(5), 905-918.
207. Campbell, J. E. (2004). Getting it on online: Cyberspace, gay male sexuality and embodied identity. New York: The Harrington Park Press.
208. Castellano, U. (2007). Becoming a nonexpert and other strategies for managing fieldwork dilemmas in the criminal justice system. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36(6), 704-730.
209. Constable, N. (2005). Romance on a global stage: Penpals, virtual ethnography and 'mail order&’ marriages. Berkeley/London: University of California Press.
210. de Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation andpractice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
211. Dowling, P. (2007, September). Organising the social. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 21. Available online: http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome21/Dowling%20 Organising%20the%20Social.doc.
212. Dowling, P. (2009). Sociology as method: Departuresfrom theforensics ofculture, text and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.
213. Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (2001). Constructing participant/observation relations. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspective and formulations (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
214. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217-223.
215. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity and 'ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
216. Homan, R. (1980). The ethics of covert methods. The British Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 46-59.
217. Jackson, P. (1983). “Principles and problems of participant observation” Geografiska Annaler, Series B. Human Geography, 65(1), 39-46.
218. Junker, B. (1952). Some suggestions for the design of field work learning experiences. In E. C. Hughes et al. Cases on Field Work (hectographed by The University of Chicago, 1952), Part III-A.
219. Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
220. Kloos, P. (1969). Role conflicts in social fieldwork. CurrentAnthropology, 10(5), 509-511.
221. Markham, A. (2004). Reconsidering self and other: Methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 793-820). London: Sage.
222. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96.
223. Pearce, C., & Artemesia. (2009). Communities ofplay: Emergent cultures in multiplayergames and virtual worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
224. Pearson, G. (2000). Legislating for the football hooligan: A case for reform. In S. Greenfield, G. Osborn (Eds.) Law and sport in contemporary society, (pp. 82-200). London and New York: Routledge.
225. Pearson, G. (2009). The researcher as hooligan: Where 'participant&’ observation means breaking the law. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 243-255.
226. Rambo, C. (2007). Handing IRB an unloaded gun. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 353-367.
227. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resourcefor social scientists andpractitioner-researchers (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.
228. Schacht, S. P. (1997). Feminist fieldwork in the misogynist setting of the rugby pitch: Temporarily becoming a sylph to survive and personally grow. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 26(3), 338-363.
229. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2000). Ire in Ireland. Ethnography, 1(1), 117-140.
230. Scott, D., & Usher, R. (1999). Researching education: Data, methods and theory in educational enquiry. London and New York: Continuum.
231. Smith, K. M. C. (2004). ‘Electronic eavesdropping&’: The ethical issues involved in conducting a virtual ethnography. In M. D. Johns, S. Chen, G. Jon Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, & ethics (pp. 223-238). New York: Peter Lang.
232. Van Maanen, J., Manning P. K., & Miller, M. L. (1987). Editors&’ introduction in Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler (1987) Membership roles in field research, Qualitative research methods series 6 (p. 5). London/Newbury Park: Sage.
233. Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang leaderfor a day: A rogue sociologist crosses the line. London/New York: Penguin.
234. Wacquant, L. (2005). Carnal connections: On embodiment, apprenticeship, and membership. Qualitative Sociology, 28(4), 445-471.
235. Whiteman, N. (2007). The establishment, maintenance and destabilisation of fandom: A study of two online communities and an exploration of issues pertaining to internet research. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London.
236. Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and contingency: Maintaining ethical stances in research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 6-22.
237. Winlow, S., Hibbs, D., Lister, S., & Hadfield, P. (2001). Get ready to duck: Bouncers and the realities of ethnographic research on violent groups. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 536-548.
238. Baker, R. (1999). Code ofethics: Some history. Available online: http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/ThM_580_Bioethics/03_Hist_2_15-19c/06_percival.htm.
239. Baym, N. K., & Markham, A. N (2008). Introduction: Making smart choices on shifting ground. In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
240. Bruckman, A., Karahalios, K., Kraut, R. E., Poole, E. S., Thomas, J. C., & Yardi, S. (2010). Revisiting research ethics in the facebook era: Challenges in emerging CSCW research. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/CSCW_10/docs/p623.pdf.
241. Burgess, R. G. (1984). In thefield: An introduction tofield research. London: George Allen & Unwin.
242. Craft, A. J. (2007). Sin in cyber-eden: Understanding the metaphysics and morals of virtual worlds. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 205-217.
243. Denzin, N. (1968). On the ethics of disguised observation. Social Problems, 115, 502-504.
244. Drushel, B. E., & German, K. (2011). Ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and new media technology. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
245. Grossman, L. (2010). William Gibson serves up zero history. Time.com, Saturday, September 18 2010, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2015775-2,00.html.
246. Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Williams, P. (2002). Online versus offline research: Implications for evaluating digital media. ASLIB Proceedings, 54(4), 229-239.
247. Guyer, J. (1999). Anthropology: The study of cultural and cultural originality. African Sociological Review, 3(2), 30-53.
248. Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3), 211-225.
249. Langford, D. (2000). Internet ethics. London/Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
250. May, T. (2001). Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open University Press.
251. McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. Available online: www.writing.ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/McKee_Article.pdf.
252. McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). The ethics of Internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process. Oxford: Peter Lang.
253. McNamee, M. (2001). Introduction: Whose ethics, which research? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 309-327.
254. Sieber, J. E. (2006). Ethical principles. The Sage dictionary ofsocial research methods, Research Methods Online, http://srmo.sagepub.com/
255. Slater, D. (2002). Making things real: Ethics and order on the internet. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 227-245.
256. Spinello, R. A., & Tavani, H. T. (2004). Readings in cyberethics. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
257. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. London/New York: Routledge.
258. Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and contingency: Maintaining ethical stances in research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 6-22.
259. Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2011). Researching personal information on the public web: Methods and ethics. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 387-401.