Supporting ethical web research: A new research ethics review

WWW 2015 - Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 151-161

  Bowser, Anne ^a   Tsai, Janice Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Ethics Review; Institutional Review Board (IRB); Research Methods

Indexed keywords

ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE EMISSION; ITERATIVE METHODS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS; ETHICS; FEDERAL REGULATIONS; INDUSTRY RESEARCH; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS; ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT; MICROSOFT RESEARCHES; RESEARCH PAPERS;

WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 84963564185     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2736277.2741654     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Aycock, J., Buchanan, E., Dexter, S. and Dittrich, D. 2011. Human subjects, agents, or bots: Current issues in ethics and computer security research. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, G. Danezis, S. Dietrich, and K. Sako Eds. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 138-145.
2. The Belmont Report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
3. Bernstein, M. 2014. The destructive silence of social computing researchers. https://medium.com/@msbernst/the-destructive-silence-of-social-computing-researchers-9155cdff659.
4. Buchanan, E., Aycock, J., Dexter, S., Dittrich, D. and Hvizdak, E. 2011. Computer science security research and human subjects: Emerging considerations for research ethics boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 2 (Jun.2011), 71-83. DOI= 10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.71.
5. Buchanan, E. and Ess, C. 2009. Internet research ethics and the institutional review board: Current practices and issues. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 39, 5 (Dec. 2009), 43-49.
6. Corbin, C. and Strauss, S. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
7. Dearden, A. 2012. See no evil? Ethics in interventionist ICTD. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (Atlanta, GA, Mar. 12-15, 2012), ICTD 12. New York: ACM Press, 46-55.
8. Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.html.
9. Garfinkel, S. and Faith Cranor, L. 2010. Viewpoint: Institutional review boards and your research. Communications of the ACM, 53, 6 (Jun. 2010), 38-40.
10. Gupta, P., Goel, A., Lin, J., Sharma, A., Wang, D. and Zadeh, R. 2013. WTF: The who to follow service at Twitter. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13-17, 2013). WWW 13. ACM, New York, NY, 505-514.
11. Holz, H., Applin, A., Haberman, B., Joyce, D., Purchase, H. and Reed, C. 2006. Research methods in computing: What are they, and how should we teach them? In Proceedings of ITiCSE 2006 (Bologna, Italy, June 26-28, 2006). iTiCSE 11. ACM Press, New York, NY, 96-114.
12. Hughes, J. T. and Tene, O. 2014. The truth is out there: Compliance and security are not enough. Privacy Perspectives (3 Oct. 2014). https://privacyassociation.org/news/a/the-Truth-is-out-There-for-big-data-privacy-compliance-And-security-Are-not-enough/
13. IRBs and Assurances. http://hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html
14. Kramer, A., Guillory, J. and Hancock, J. 2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS, 111, 24 (Jun. 2014), 8788-8790.
15. Langheinrich, M., Schmidt, A., Davies, N. and Jose, R. 2013. A practical framework for ethics-The PD-net approach to supporting ethics compliance in public display systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (Mountain View, California, June 5-7, 2013), PerDis 13. ACM, New York, NY, 139-144. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2491568.2491598
16. Mackay, M. 1995. Ethics, lies, and videotapeIn Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, May 7-11, 1995). CHI 95. ACM, New York, NY, 138-145. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/223904.223922
17. McMillan, D., Morrison, A. and Chalmers, M. 2013. Categorized ethical guidelines for large scale mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France, April 27-May 2, 2013). CHI 13. ACM, New York, NY, 1853-1862. Proc. CHI 2013, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1853-1862. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466245
18. Nissenbaum, H. 2009. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
19. Peden, B. and Flashinski, D. 2004. Virtual research ethics: A content analysis of surveys and experiments. In Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies, E. Buchanan Ed. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, 1-26.
20. Research involving individuals with questionable capacity to consent: Points to consider. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.html.
21. Schrag, D. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965-2009. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
22. Schroepfer, M. 2014. Research at Facebook. Facebook Newsroom (2 October 2014). http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/research-At-facebook/
23. Silberman, G. and Kahn, K. 2011. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. The Milbank Quarterly, 89, 3 (Dec. 2011), 599-627.
24. Solberg, L. 2012. Regulating human subjects research in the information age: Data mining on social networking sites. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 39, 2 (Oct. 2012), 327-358.
25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 45 CFR 46.
26. Verna, I. 2014. Editorial expression of concern: Experimental evidence of massive scale emotion contagion through social networks. Proc. National Academies of Science USA, 111, 29, 10779.