Towards an Ethical Framework for Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation

Sociology

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1149-1168

  Williams, Matthew L ^a   Burnap, Pete ^a   Sloan, Luke ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

algorithms; computational social science; context collapse; ethics; social data science; social media; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 85036583151     PISSN: 00380385     EISSN: 14698684     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0038038517708140     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Acquisti A, (2009) Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. Security and Privacy, IEEE 7(6): 82–85.
2. AoIR (Association of Internet Researchers) (2012) Ethical decision-marking and Internet research. Available at: www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
3. Awan I, (2014) Islamophobia and Twitter: A typology of online hate against Muslims on social media. Policy and Internet 6(2): 133–150.
4. Barocas S, Nissenbaum H, (2014) Big data’s end run around procedural privacy protections. Communications of the ACM 57(11): 3–33.
5. Beer D, (2009) Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society 11(6): 985–1002.
6. Beninger K, Fry A, Jago N, (2014) Research Using Social Media: Users Views. London: NatCen.
7. boyd d, (2014) It’s Complicated: Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. Buchanan EA, Zimmer M, (2016) Internet research ethics. In: Zalta EN, (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standard, CA: Stanford University, 1–22.
9. Burnap P, Williams ML, (2015) Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy and Internet 7(2): 223–242.
10. Burnap P, Williams ML, (2016) Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Science 5(11): 1–15.
11. Burnap P, Colombo G, Scourfield JB, (2015a) Machine classification and analysis of suicide-related communication on Twitter. Paper presented at the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Social Media, Cyprus, 1–4 September 2015.
12. Burnap P, Williams ML, Rana O, (2013) Detecting tension in online communities with computational Twitter analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 95(9): 96–108.
13. Burnap P, Williams ML, Rana O, (2015b) COSMOS: Towards an integrated and scalable service for analysing social media on demand. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems 30(2): 80–100.
14. Burnap P, Williams ML, Sloan L, (2014) Tweeting the terror: Modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining 4(206): 1–4.
15. Burrows R, (2009) Afterword: Urban informatics and social ontology. In: Foth M, (ed.) Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 450–454.
16. Couldry N, Fotopoulou A, Dickens L, (2016) Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world. British Journal of Sociology 67(1): 118–137.
17. Dicks B, Mason B, Williams ML, (2006) Ethnography and data reuse: Issues of context and hypertext. Methodological Innovations 1(2): 33–46.
18. Dorofeev S, Grant P, (2006) Statistics for Real-Life Sample Surveys: Non-Simple Random Samples and Weighted Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Edwards A, Housley W, Williams ML, (2013) Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: Surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(3): 245–260.
20. Eurobarometer Survey 359 (2011) Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.
21. Evans H, Ginnis S, Bartlett J, (2015) #SocialEthics: A Guide to Embedding Ethics in Social Media Research. London: IpsosMORI.
22. Eynon R, Fry J, Schroeder R, (2016) The ethics of Internet research. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Black G, (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: SAGE.
23. Hammersley M, Atkinson P, (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.
24. Innes M, Roberts C, Preece A, (2016) Ten ‘Rs’ of social reaction: Using social media to analyse the ‘post-event’ impacts of the murder of Lee Rigby. Terrorism and Political Violence. Epub ahead of print 7 July 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1180289.
25. Joinson AN, (1998) Causes and effects of disinhibition on the Internet. In: Gackenbach J, (ed.) The Psychology of the Internet. New York: Academic Press, 43–60.
26. Knorr-Cetina K, (2001) Objectual practice. In: Shatzki TR, Von Savigny E, Knorr Cetina K, (eds) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Abingdon: Routledge, 184–197.
27. Lash S, (2001) Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society 18(1): 105–120.
28. Lash S, (2007) Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation. Theory Culture & Society 24(3): 55–78.
29. Lazer D, King G, Vespignani A, (2014) The parable of Google flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science 343: 1203–1205.
30. Lessig L, (1999) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
31. Markham A, (2012) Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous Internet contexts. Information, Communication and Society 15(3): 334–353.
32. Marwick AE, boyd d, (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imaged audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133.
33. Metcalf J, Crawford K, (2016) Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data and Society. Epub ahead of print 1 June 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211.
34. Nissenbaum H, (2009) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
35. Roberts C, Innes M, Preece A, (2017) After Woolwich: Analyzing open source communications to understand the interactive and multi-polar dynamics of the arc of conflict. British Journal of Criminology. Epub ahead of print 7 April 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azx024.
36. Ruppert E, (2015) Who owns big data. Discover Society 23. Available at: http://discoversociety.org/2015/07/30/who-owns-big-data/.
37. Ruppert E, Law J, Savage M, (2013) Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 22–46.
38. Savage M, Burrows R, (2009) Some further reflections on the coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology 43(4): 765–775.
39. Scourfield JB, Colombo G, Burnap P, (2016) The response in Twitter to an assisted suicide in a television soap opera. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 37(5): 392–395.
40. Sloan L, (2017) Who tweets in the United Kingdom? Profiling the Twitter population using the British Social Attitudes Survey 2015. Social Media & Society 3(1): 1–11.
41. Sloan L, Morgan J, (2015) Who tweets with their location? Understanding the relationship between demographic characteristics and the use of geoservices and geotagging on Twitter. PLoS ONE 10(11): 1–15.
42. Sloan L, Morgan J, Burnap P, (2015) Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. PLoS ONE 10(3): 1–20.
43. Sloan L, Morgan J, Williams ML, (2013) Knowing the tweeters: Deriving sociologically relevant demographics from Twitter. Sociological Research Online 18(7): 1–11.
44. Tinati R, Halford S, Carr L, (2014) Big data: Methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis. Sociology 48(4): 663–681.
45. Townsend L, Wallace C, (2016) Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen. Available at: www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_487729_en.pdf.
46. Twitter (2015) Developer agreement. San Francisco, CA: Twitter. Available at: https://dev.twitter.com/overview/terms/agreement-and-policy.
47. Twitter (2016) Broadcast guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Twitter. Available at: https://about.twitter.com/en-gb/company/broadcast.
48. Urry J, (2000) Mobile sociology. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 185–203.
49. Van Dijck J, (2013) The Culture of Connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Weeks J, (2007) The World We Have Won. London: Routledge.
51. Williams ML, (2006) Virtually Criminal: Crime, Deviance and Regulation Online. London: Routledge.
52. Williams ML, (2015) Towards an ethical framework for using social media data in social research. Paper presented at Social Research Association Workshop, Institute of Education, UCL, London, 15 June.
53. Williams ML, Burnap P, (2015) Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology 57(2): 320–340.
54. Williams ML, Burnap P, (2016) Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: A case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology 56(2): 211–238.
55. Williams ML, Burnap P, Sloan L, (2017) Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology 57(2): 320–340.
56. Williams ML, Edwards A, Housley W, (2013) Policing cyber-neighbourhoods: Tension monitoring and social media networks. Policing and Society 23(4): 461–481.