The 2011 Theorizing the Web Conference at the University of Maryland brought together researchers from a multitude of disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, communication studies, information science, computer science, and art, to explore the how the online world is influenced, influences and augments the social world online and off. The conference describes this confluence by stating, “the social Web has the potential to change and/or reinforce some of our most fundamental social relationships, including those with others, our selves, our bodies and our experience with reality itself." In studying this change, researchers working in these environments also have to navigate new ethical spaces. What are the researcher’s ethical obligations when it can be unclear if one is studying a human subject, or if one is simply studying data? The researcher/participant relationship can be complicated in this changing online environment. In order to be able to answer the grand questions of how the social web is changing some of our most fundamental social relationships, a researcher must first be able to navigate the ethical conduct of one’s own research.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play an important role at the academic institution, helping to ensure that research is conducted in an ethical manner, that it is respectful of all research participants, and that it is compliant with legal regulations of research. IRBs play a strong role in helping researchers navigate the ethical conduct of research. At the same time, IRBs themselves are figuring out the new complications of the online research environment in determining what constitutes a human subject and how to best protect that participant. When a researcher is studying information on Web 2.0 platform, are they studying a person, or are they simply studying data? When individuals make public Facebook posts, are they implicitly consenting for that information to be used in studies? The 2011 Theorizing the Web Conference proved to be an ample opportunity to explore the relationship between IRBs, human subjects protections, research and researchers studying the online world.

No two IRBs are the same, and as such, there seemed to be as many different responses to questions about the role that IRBs have had in shaping and guiding presenter’s research as there were disciplines represented at the conference. In response to prompts about how IRBs were helping to shape or guide their work, many presenters noted that the intensity of IRB review was directly related to the types of data that they were collecting and the specific populations they were interested in. For instance, one researcher whose work focuses on how Facebook communication augments offline relationships, explained that the IRB at her institution had little concern about the information that she was collecting from Facebook profiles for a research study, but noted that in-person follow-up interviews would require a much closer approval.

While traditionally, IRBs are the formal body at academic institutions for research ethics oversight, some institutions may be inserting additional layers at the department level. Researcher Jes Koepfler, who presented work focusing on how homeless populations are using social networking sites, noted that in addition to the IRB human-subjects review process, her department also had a formal oversight and guidance role during the research process.

When one wants to understand how ethics and research meet in praxis, IRBs have traditionally been the body to look to. Less attention has been paid to the role of the department in informal research oversight and human subjects protections. By looking at how academics at the forefront of Internet research are experiencing ethical oversight and guidance in the research process, it is possible gain a better picture of the future of research ethics in the digital age.

Ethical practice is an essential component of Internet research that seeks to be cross-cultural, globally sensitive, and sustainable.  While each of us might conduct inquiry using an individual moral compass (as shaped by our own experiences and larger communities of practice), workshops like this help build a collaborative understanding of the ways in which we can ensure the rights of research participants.   A collaborative, cross-cultural effort is crucial to protect not only our participants’ rights, but also our own rights as researchers, particularly as our efforts become more and more controlled by external governing agencies, such as Institutional Research Boards in the United States and various research ethics boards around the world.

The workshop's goals were to engage participants in a critical dialogue and discussion of cross-cultural, pluralistic approaches to ethics in Internet research and how these play out in practice on new and emerging technologies. Moreover, the participants examined how researchers might work through and with rather than against these differences to ensure that the participants of our studies are sufficiently protected and represented. In addition, the group sought to break down language surrounding research ethics such that it is not always divided by qualitative versus quantitative discourses.

 Speakers included: Charles Ess, Alex Halavais, Annette Markham, Malin Svenningson, and Michael Zimmer.

Presentations were made on an array of topics, including:

How does cultural specificity define research ethics and regulation?

What constitutes a public text online and in what ways can and should they be used in research?

Why do we consider firewalls and passwords to be the "golden standard" for defining "private information?"

How do researchers work towards the imperative of sharing data while adhering to human subjects regulations?

What ethical guidelines should be applied to trace data?

How do researchers handle "closeness" in ethnography in ethical ways?

What oscillations take place when a researcher is first known as a member of a group and then as a researcher?

How is "empirical imperialism" affecting research ethics?

What are the virtues of deception?

The group then engaged in specific discussions of the above questions, with the goal of leaving the workshop with some best practices. There is an             understanding that such best practices must be based on considerations of cultural, temporal, disciplinary, and methodological specificity.

Examples from the group’s best practices included:

1. In the written text, the researcher should situate or frame the context in a way that is most honest, true, authentic, to the researcher’s purpose and perspective.

2. Create an ethics board proposal that leaves open the most number of doors for promoting exploratory, inductive practice (noting that qualitative research takes longer, questions and methods change throughout the study)

3. In the beginning the researcher should explain the ethical plan and at the end, explain the ethical decisions.

4. It is possible and sometimes necessary to protect participants through the context through narrative and creative means, which may include fictionalizing or creating composite accounts.

5. Informed consent may happen at different points throughout a study, Sometimes it may be more ethical to get informed consent at the end when you want to present a specific case study or quote an individual or focus on a particular element. Therefore, informed consent should be always an inductive process.

6. Ethics always happens at different moments across research. Think about the research process—what are the critical junctures throughout the research? Consider the many points at which ethics emerges.

7. Consider carefully plans for data release: Representation of subjects can be through a composite or representative example.

Some general comments included:

1. Current attempts to anonymize data are too thin.

2. There is a realization that shared data may be less “useful” the more anonymized it is.

3. In regards to shared data, how responsible is the original researcher?

4. Can a researcher use data that was collected in ethically questionable way?

4. Researchers can use bad data in a good way?

5. What responsibilities exist around the responsible use of images? There are significant issues surrounding uncovering data about a subject/participant accidentally?

6. Collection of data via scraping leads to potential violations of terms of service. Is it ethically acceptable to violate a terms of service? If there is no material impact to the company, the research may be beneficial. (Not proprietary data, no identifiable data). If there is no other reasonable way to collect the data, violation of TOS may be an acceptable option of last resort. Boiler plate language, standards for companies to give researchers fair use of their data.

The workshop was facilitated by Elizabeth Buchanan, Anthony Hoffmann, and Jeremy Mauger, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and sponsored in             part by the National Science Foundation, project number 0924604. (Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation).

Please feel free to check out the presentations below!

Slides from remaining presentaitons forthcoming...

Check out Elizabeth Buchanan on the BITrum Agora blog (a discussion arena of the Science of Information Institute), in an interview conducted by IRE project assistant Anthony Hoffmann.

In the casual interview, Elizabeth briefly discusses her past experiences with Internet research ethics, as well as what makes IRE distinct from research ethics in general and what she sees as the most pressing issues in IRE today.

IRE Commons Director Elizabeth Buchanan and Team Member Michael Zimmer will present to the Secretary's Advisory Committee to the Office of Human Research Protections (SACHRP) on July 21, 2010. Elizabeth and Michael will join Montana Miller, Bowling Green University and John Palfrey, Harvard University, to discuss Internet research ethics and federal policy. More on SACHRP can be found here!