Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee[1]
Copyright (c) 2002 by Charles Ess
and the Association of Internet Researchers
PLEASE NOTE: we intend for this
document to be publicly accessible, precisely so that it may contribute to
reflection, debate, and education regarding Internet research ethics. At the same time, it is copyrighted and
thus entails the usual requirements for "fair use" of copyrighted
materials.
In
particular, any DUPLICATION, CITATION AND/OR ATTRIBUTION must include the
following information:
Title: Ethical
decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the aoir ethics
working committee
Authors: Charles Ess and the AoIR ethics working committee
Approved by AoIR, November 27, 2002
Available online: <http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>,
<www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.html>
The ethics committee would also
appreciate notification of the use of this document. Please write to: Steve Jones <sjones@uic.edu> and/or Charles Ess <cmess@drury.edu>.
Contents:
I. Audience, Purpose, Rationale and Approach
II. Questions to ask when undertaking Internet research
Where does the inter/action, communication, etc. under study
take place?
What
ethical expectations are established by the venue?
Who are the
subjects posters / authors / creators of the material and/or inter/actions
under study?
Informed consent: specific considerations
How far
do extant legal requirements and ethical guidelines in your discipline cover
the research?
How
far do extant legal requirements and ethical guidelines in the countries
implicated in the research apply?
What are the initial ethical expectations/assumptions of the authors/subjects being studied?
What ethically significant risks does the research entail for the subject(s)?
What benefits might be gained from the research?
What
are the ethical traditions of researchers and subjects culture and country?
V. Addendum 1: Ethical Protocols - Questions and
decision-making guides for Internet research ethics
VI. Addendum 2: Discussion of contrast between
utilitarian and deontological approaches as reflected in contrasts between the
U.S. and Europe (Scandinavia and the EU) in laws regarding privacy and consumer
protection
VII. Addendum 3: Sample consent forms (courtesy,
Leslie Regan Shade) for parents and children involved in Internet research
Researchers, ethicists, and students in the social sciences and humanities, within the academic world and/or private and/or public research institutes, who study human inter/actions[2] in the various venues made possible by the Internet;
Organizations that commission, fund, or have oversight responsibility for Internet research (e.g., Institutional Review Boards in the United States; external Learning and Teaching Support Networks subject centres and internal Academic Standards and Policy committees in the United Kingdom; in Australia,[3] the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council [see <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/issues/researchethics.htm>], etc.
Academic societies and/or groups within the social sciences and humanities that promote and/or incorporate research concerning the Internet (e.g., the Japan Society for Socio-Information Studies (JSIS), <http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsis/> affiliated with the National Institute of Informatics, <http://www.nii.ac.jp/index.html>; the Information Ethics Group, Oxford Computing Laboratory <http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/research/areas/ieg/> and the International Center for Information Ethics (Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany) <http://icie.zkm.de/etc).
Purpose
This document represents a series
of recommendations designed to support and inform those responsible for making
decisions about the ethics of Internet research.
It provides a resource for researchers, ethicists, and students by bringing together current discussion of important
ethical issues and pertinent literature in the field.
It can provide support for organisations and related groups that commission, fund or have overall
responsibility for or an interest in Internet research practices in an
international context and can be used to help inform any such bodies of the
ethical issues that might be considered and possible ways of resolving ethical
problems.
[The committee - whose members represent eleven national cultures - is acutely aware that English, while currently the lingua franca of the Web, is but one of many languages in which important research and reflection takes place. As noted below, a central goal of this document is to present Internet research ethics that are intentionally pluralistic, first of all in order to preserve and foster the often diverse ethical insights of the worlds cultures. While the committee has attempted to develop a comprehensive overview of issues and resources in Internet research ethics - we would welcome suggestions for additions, especially from national cultures and in languages not well represented in the current document.]
Rationale
The Internet has opened up a wide range of new ways to examine human inter/actions in new contexts, and from a variety of disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. As in its offline counterpart, online research also raises critical issues of risk and safety to the human subject. Hence, online researchers may encounter conflicts between the requirements of research and its possible benefits, on the one hand, and human subjects rights to and expectations of autonomy, privacy, informed consent, etc.
The many disciplines already long engaged in human subjects research (sociology, anthropology, psychology, medicine, communication studies, etc.[4]) have established ethics statements intended to guide researchers and those charged with ensuring that research on human subjects follows both legal requirements and ethical practices. Researchers and those charged with research oversight are encouraged in the first instance to turn to the discipline-specific principles and practices of research (many of which are listed below - see IV. Resources, pp. 11-17).
But as online research takes place in a range of new venues (email, chatrooms, webpages, various forms of instant messaging, MUDs and MOOs, USENET newsgroups, audio/video exchanges, etc.) researchers, research subjects, and those charged with research oversight will often encounter ethical questions and dilemmas that are not directly addressed in extant statements and guidelines. In addition, both the great variety of human inter/actions observable online and the clear need to study these inter/actions in interdisciplinary ways have thus engaged researchers and scholars in disciplines beyond those traditionally involved in human subjects research: for example, researching the multiple uses of texts and graphics images in diverse Internet venues often benefits from approaches drawn from art history, literary studies, etc. This interdisciplinary approach to research leads, however, to a central ethical difficulty: the primary assumptions and guiding metaphors and analogies - and thus the resulting ethical codes - can vary sharply from discipline to discipline, especially as we shift from the social sciences (which tend to rely on medical models and law for human subjects protections) to the humanities (which stress the agency and publicity of persons as artists and authors).
This array of ethical issues and possible (and sometimes conflicting) approaches to ethical decision-making are daunting, if not overwhelming. Nonetheless, as we have worked through a wide range of issues, case studies, and pertinent literature, we are convinced that it is possible - up to a point, at least - to clarify and resolve at least many of the more common ethical difficulties.
This document - as it synthesizes the results of our nearly two years of work together - is intended to aid both researchers from a variety of disciplines and those responsible for insuring that this research adhere to legal and ethical requirements in their work of clarifying and resolving ethical issues encounter in online research.
Approach
This document stresses:
Ethical pluralism
Ethical concerns arise not only
when we encounter apparent conflicts in values and interests but also when we
recognize that there is more than one ethical decision-making framework used to
analyze and resolve those conflicts. In philosophical ethics, these frameworks
are commonly classified in terms of deontology, consequentialism, virtue
ethics, feminist ethics, and several others.[5]
Researchers
and their institutions, both within a given national tradition and across
borders and cultures, take up these diverse frameworks in grappling with
ethical conflicts. Our first goal in this document is to emphasize and
represent this diversity of frameworks not in order to pit one against
another, but to help researchers and those charged with research oversight to
understand how these frameworks operate in specific situations. On occasion, in
fact, ethical conflicts can be resolved by recognizing that apparently opposing
values represent different ethical frameworks. By shifting the debate from the
conflict between specific values to a contrast between ethical frameworks,
researchers and their colleagues may understand the conflict in new light, and
discern additional issues and considerations that help resolve the specific
conflict.[6]
Cross-cultural awareness
Different nations and cultures
enjoy diverse legal protections and traditions of ethical decision-making.
Especially as Internet research may entail a literally global scope, efforts to
respond to ethical concerns and resolve ethical conflicts must take into
account diverse national and cultural frameworks.[7]
Guidelines not recipes
As noted
in our Preliminary Report (October, 2001), given the range of possible ethical
decision-making procedures (utilitarianism, deontology, feminist ethics, etc.),
the multiple interpretations and applications of these procedures to specific
cases, and their refraction through culturally-diverse emphases and values
across the globe the issues raised by Internet research are ethical problems precisely because they evoke more than one
ethically defensible response to a specific dilemma or problem. Ambiguity,
uncertainty, and disagreement are inevitable.
In this light, it is a mistake to view our recommendations
as providing general principles that can be applied without difficulty or
ambiguity to a specific ethical problem so as to algorithmically deduce the
correct answer.
At the
same time, recognizing the possibility of a range of defensible ethical
responses to a given dilemma does not commit us to ethical relativism (anything
goes).[8]
On the contrary, the general values and guidelines endorsed here articulate
parameters that entail significant restrictions on what may and what may not
be defended as ethical behavior. In philosophical terms, then, like most
philosophers and ethicists, we endorse here a middle-ground between ethical
relativism and an ethical dogmatism (a single set of ostensibly absolute and
unquestionable values, applied through a single procedure, issuing in the
only right answer - with all differing responses condemned as immoral).
To make this point a
last way: since Aristotle (in the West), ethicists have recognized that doing the right thing, for the
right reason, in the right way, at the right time remains a matter of judgment
or phronesis.[9]
Again, such judgment cannot be reduced to a simple deduction from
general rules to particular claims. Rather, it is part of the function of
judgment to determine just what general rules indeed apply to a particular
context. Developing and fostering such judgment, as Aristotle stressed,
requires both guidance from those more experienced than ourselves and our own
cumulative experience in seeking to reflect carefully on ethical matters and to
discern what the right thing at the right time for the right reason and in the
right way may be (cf. Dreyfus, 2001).
Our
hope is that the materials collected here will serve Internet researchers and
those who collaborate with them in attempting to resolve the ethical issues
that emerge in their work - first of all, that these materials will foster
precisely their own sense of phronesis or judgment.
II.
Questions to ask when undertaking
Internet research
(For additional examples of such
question lists, see V. Addendum 1)
Where does the inter/action, communication, etc. under study
take place?
Current venues include:
Homepages
Weblogs
Google searches
Email
(personal e-mail exchanges)
Listservs
(exchanges and archives)
USENET
newsgroups
ICQ/IM
(text-based)
CUSeeMe
(and other audio-video exchanges)
Chatrooms,
including IRC
MUDs/MOOs
gaming
images and other forms of multi-media presentation (webcams, etc.)
(some forms of) Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work systems
What
ethical expectations are established by the venue?
For
example:
Is there
is a posted site policy that establishes specific expectations e.g., a
statement notifying users that the site is public, the possible technical limits
to privacy in specific areas or domains, etc.
Example: Sally Hambridge (Intel Corporation, 1998) has developed an extensive set of Netiquette Guidelines that includes the following advice:
Unless you are using an encryption
device (hardware or software), you should assume that mail on the Internet is
not secure. Never put in a mail message anything you would not put on a
postcard.
(see <http://www.pcplayer.dk/Netikette_reference.doc>)
Is there a statement
affiliated with the venue (chatroom, listserv, MOO or MUD, etc.) indicating
whether discussion, postings, etc., are ephemeral, logged for a specific time,
and/or archived in a private and/or publicly-accessible location such as a
website, etc.?
Are there mechanisms
that users may choose to employ to indicate that their exchanges should be
regarded as private e.g., moving to a private chatroom, using specific
encryption software, etc.? to indicate their desire to have their exchanges
kept private?
One
broad consideration: the greater the acknowledged publicity of the venue,
the less obligation there may be to protect individual privacy,
confidentiality, right to informed consent, etc.
Who are the subjects posters /
authors / creators of the material and/or inter/actions under study?
While all persons have rights and
researchers the obligation to protect those rights, the obligation - and
attendant difficulties - of researchers to protect their subjects is heightened
if the subjects are (a) children and/or (b) minors (between the age of 12 and
18). In the United States, for example, children cannot give informed
consent, according to the Code of Federal Regulations (<http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/45cfr46.php3>:
cf. Walther, 2002).
Minors also represent special difficulties, as they inhabit something of a
middle ground - legally and ethically - between children and adults. For
example, are web pages created by minors - but often without much understanding
of the possible harms some kinds of
posted information might bring either to the author and/or others - to be
treated as the same sort of document as authored by adults, who (presumably)
are better informed about and sensitive to the dangers of posting personal
information on the Web? Or are researchers rather required to exercise greater
care in protecting the identity of minors - perhaps even to inform them when
their materials may pose risks to themselves and/or others (see Ridderstrm,
2002).
A broad consideration: the
greater the vulnerability of the author / subject - the greater the obligation
of the researcher to protect the author / subject.
[See the sample consent forms for parent(s), children (aged 13-17), and children (aged 9-12) from Leslie Regan Shade, VII. Addendum 3.]
Informed consent: specific considerations
Timing
Ideally,
protecting human subjects rights to privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, and informed
consent means approaching subjects at the very beginning of research to ask for
consent, etc.
In some contexts, however, the goals of a research project
may shift over time as emerging patterns suggest new questions, etc. Determining
not only if, but when to ask for informed consent is thus
somewhat context-dependent and requires particular attention to the
fine-grained details of the research project not only in its inception but
also as it may change over its course.
Medium?
Researchers should determine what medium e-mail? postal letter? for both requesting and receiving informed consent best protects both the subject(s) and their project. (As is well known, compared with electronic records, paper records are less subject to erasure and corruption through power drops, operator error, etc.)
Addressees?
In studying groups with a high turnover rate, is obtaining permission from the moderator/facilitator/list owner, etc., sufficient?
How material is to be used?
Will the
material be referred to by direct quotation or paraphrased?
Will the
material be attributed to a specified person? Referred to by his/her real name?
Pseudonym? Double-pseudonym (i.e, a pseudonym for a frequently used
pseudonym)?
(Obviously,
the more published research protects the confidentiality of persons involved as
subjects, the less risk such publication entails for those persons.
Such protections do not necessarily lessen the need for informed consent. Rather, researchers seeking informed consent need to make clear to their subjects how material about them and/or from them will be used - i.e., the specific uses of material and how their identities will be protected are part of what subjects are informed about and asked to consent to.)
How far do extant legal
requirements and ethical guidelines in your discipline cover the research? (For the guidelines as published by a number of
disciplines, see Resources, below. See as well the discussion of the ethical
and legal contrasts between the United States and Europe, VI. Addendum 2)
How far do extant legal
requirements and ethical guidelines in the countries implicated in the research
apply?
For example:
all persons who are citizens of the European Union enjoy strong privacy rights
by law as established in the European Union Data Protection
Directive (1995), according to which data-subjects must:
* Unambiguously give consent for personal information to be
gathered online;
* Be given notice as to why data is being collected about
them;
* Be able to correct erroneous data;
* Be able to opt-out of data collection; and
* Be protected from having their data transferred to
countries with less stringent privacy protections.
(see <http://www.privacy.org/pi>
U.S. citizens, by contrast, enjoy somewhat less stringent
privacy protections (see VI. Addendum 2).
Obviously, research cannot violate the legal requirements
for privacy protection enforced in the countries under whose jurisdiction the
research and subjects find themselves.
What are the initial ethical expectations/assumptions of the authors/subjects being studied?
For example: Do participants in this
environment assume/believe that their communication is private?[10] If so and if this assumption is warranted then
there may be a greater obligation on the part of the researcher to protect
individual privacy in the ways outlined in human subjects research (i.e.,
protection of confidentiality, exercise of informed consent, assurance of
anonymity - or at least pseudonymity - in any publication of the research,
etc.).
If not e.g., if the research focuses on
publicly accessible archives;
inter/actions intended by their authors/agents as public, performative
(e.g., intended as a public act or performance that invites recognition for
accomplishment), etc.;
venues assigned the equivalent of a public notice that participants
and their communications may be monitored for research purposes;
Ķ.
then there may be less obligation to protect individual privacy.[11]
Alternatively: Are participants in this
environment best understood as subjects (in the senses common in human
subjects research in medicine and the social sciences) or as authors whose
texts/artifacts are intended as public?
If participants are best understood as subjects in
the first sense (e.g., as they participate in small chatrooms, MUDs or MOOs
intended to provide reasonably secure domains for private exchanges), then
greater obligations to protect autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, etc., are likely
to follow.
If, by contrast, subjects may be understood as
authors intending for their work to be public (e.g., e-mail postings to large
listserves and USENET groups; public webpages such as homepages, Web logs,
etc.; chat exchanges in publicly accessible chatrooms, etc.) then fewer
obligations to protect autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, etc., will likely
follow.[12]
[The following three questions are interrelated: as will be seen, they
reflect both prevailing approaches to ethical decision-making e.g., in
Deborah Johnson (2001) as well as cultural/national differences in law and
ethical traditions.]
What ethically significant risks does the research entail for the subject(s)?
Examples (form/content
distinction):
If the content
of a subjects communication were to become known beyond the confines of the
venue being studied would harm likely result?
For example: if a person is discussing intimate
topics psychological/medical/spiritual issues, sexual
experience/fantasy/orientation, etc. would the publication of this material
result in shame, threats to material well-being (denial of insurance, job loss,
physical harassment, etc.), etc.?
A primary ethical obligation is to do no harm. Good research design, of course, seeks to minimize
risk of harm to the subjects involved.
By contrast, if the form of communication is under study - for instance the
linguistic form of requests (Open the
door vs. Id appreciate it if youd open the door, etc.), not what is being requested - this shift of focus away from content may reduce the risk to the subject.
In either case (i.e., whether it is the form or content
that is most important for the researcher), if the content is relatively
trivial, doesnt address sensitive topics, etc., then clearly the risk to the
subject is low.
What benefits might be gained from the research?
This question is obviously crucial when research in
fact may entail significant risk to the author(s)/agent(s) considered as subjects.
From a utilitarian standpoint, research can only be
justified - especially if it risks harm to individuals - if the likely benefits
arguably outweigh the real and possible costs (including potential harm).
From a deontological standpoint, even if significant
benefits may be reasonably expected from the research - such research may
remain ethically unjustified if it violates basic principles, rights, duties,
etc., e.g., rights to autonomy, privacy, and so forth (cf. the ethical
protocols, V. Addendum 1,
Elgesem, 2002).
What are the ethical traditions of researchers and subjects culture and country?
This question is crucial precisely when facing the
conflict between possible risks to subjects, including the violation of basic
human rights to self-determination, privacy, informed consent, etc., and the
benefits of research.
In the United States, for example, there may be a
greater reliance on utilitarian
approaches to deciding such conflicts specifically in the form of
risk/benefit analyses - as compared with other countries and cultures.
Crudely, if the benefits promise to be large, and the risks/costs small, then
the utilitarian calculus may find that the benefits outweigh the risks and
costs.
By contrast (and as is illustrated in the differences
in laws on privacy), at least on an ideal level, European approaches tend to
emphasize more deontological approaches
i.e., approaches that take basic human rights (self-determination, privacy,
informed consent, etc.) as so foundational that virtually no set of possible
benefits that might be gained from violating these ethically justifies that
violation.[13]
When considering conflicts between subjects rights and benefits to be gained from research that compromises those rights researchers and those charged with research oversight may well arrive at different decisions as to what is ethically acceptable and unacceptable, depending on which of these cultural/ethical approaches they utilize.
(See VI. Addendum 2.)
We hope this list is useful as a first effort to suggest a
characteristic range of questions that Internet researchers and those
responsible for oversight of such research should consider - and that it is
further useful as it suggests an initial range of ethically defensible ways to
respond in to such questions.
But of course, this list is neither complete nor final. Invariably, as Internet researchers
encounter new venues, contexts, inter/actions, etc., additional questions and
responses will inevitably arise (either as variations of these and/or as
distinctively new). Perhaps this
list will remain useful in those new contexts as it at least suggests starting
points and possible analogies for raising new questions and developing new
responses.
In any case, we hope this document will prove helpful, at least for a
while, to researchers, ethicists, and others concerned with the important
ethical challenges of Internet research.
A. Are chatrooms public spaces? When should researchers obtain consent for recording conversations in a chatroom?
[From: Hudson, James M. and Amy Bruckman. IRC Franais: The
Creation of an Internet-Based SLA Community. Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL), forthcoming 2002. Quoted by
permission from the authors and CALL.]
In our
first version of IRC Franais, an ethical dilemma immediately emerged. Our plan
was for students to converse with native French speakers already on IRC.
Clearly, the rules governing human subjects research dictate that we need freely
given informed consent from our students before we can ethically use them as
experimental subjects (The Nuremberg Code, 1949). But what about their
conversational partners? Were they research subjects or not? We were not
studying them in particular, but were recording their conversations with our
students and analyzing their words. Did we need their consent?
The
status of real-time chatrooms is ambiguous. On the one hand, one can argue that
they are like a public square. It is considered ethical to record activities in
a public place without consent, provided that individuals are not identifiable
(Eysenbach & Till, 2001). In this view, we would be justified to simply
record conversations and not tell anyone that this was taking place. On the
other hand, one can argue that chatroom conversations are normally ephemeral.
Participants have a reasonable expectation that they are not being recorded
without their freely given informed consent. Under this stricter
interpretation, we would need consent from any person whom we wish to record.
Additionally, if the process of requesting that consent proved too intrusive,
we would need to abandon the research (Department of Health, 1979).
With the
approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human subjects research,
we settled on a compromise approach: we would get written consent from our
students, but merely notify other people on the channel of our study. These
individuals would also be given the option to opt out if they so chose. Because
we wrote our own client software, we could automatically send a public message
to this effect when one of our students joined the channel, and then privately
inform others who join the channel subsequently.
To our
surprise, this compromise failed. IRC participants were angered at the idea of
being studied without their prior consent. Our students were greeted with
hostility. They were routinely harassed by IRC channel members, and often had
threats and obscenities directed at them. This seems to indicate that an opt in
solution might be more acceptable than an opt out. However, there was a further
problem: our messages notifying channel participants of the study and offering
the opportunity to opt out were found in themselves to be unacceptably
intrusive. Even though each person saw the message only once, it was still
deemed unacceptable by many members. An opt in message would have that same
problem.
Based on
the reaction our study generated, we concluded that the public square model
is untenable and, in fact, the second interpretation holds: you may not
ethically record an otherwise ephemeral medium without consent from
participants. How then could we continue our research? We came upon a solution:
create our own IRC channel explicitly for this project. We could direct our
students to that channel, and others would not normally join. Since it was our
channel, we could create a channel logon message informing people about the
study and its purpose. We could also limit access to the channel to our
students only; however, to date we have not found this necessary. Few people
come to the channel outside of students assigned to use it, and those few are
warned by the channel logon message. Now, we do not intrude on a pre-existing
space, but instead have our own.
In addition to solving our ethical dilemma, the new channel also
provided pedagogical benefits. While people come to general IRC channels for a
variety of social purposes, everyone on the IRC Franais channel is there for
the purpose of practicing French. This shared goal greatly improved the
educational value of the conversation for all concerned.
B. Brenda Danet, Studies of
Cyberpl@y: Ethical and Methodological Aspects, available from <http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/papers/ethics2.pdf>.
Prof. Danet reviews five studies presented more fully in her recent
book, and discusses the ethical issues these studies raise in the contexts of
(1) two-person email
(2) typed chat in performance situations; and
(3) communication via visual images on IRC.
Out of this experience and
reflection, Prof. Danet develops a list of guidelines (included as Appendix III
in the aoir ethics working committee a preliminary
report - <www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.html>.
Prof.
Danets paper is to be recommended as a primary example of a more utilitarian
approach to Internet research ethics, in contrast with the more deontological
approach represented by James Hudson and Amy Bruckman in case study A, above.
IV. References, Resources
References / annotated bibliography
Allen, Christina. 1996. Whats Wrong with the Golden Rule? Conundrums
of Conducting Ethical Research in Cyberspace. The Information Society 12 (2), 175-187.
Allen describes a
method of dialogical ethics (my terms) that works from the bottom up
(following the approach of Mikhail Bakhtin) rather than beginning with general
principles and moving top down. Her approach - illustrated with an example of
her own research on LambdaMOO - further draws from anthropology and cultural
studies as these acknowledge and seek to understand the ramifications of the
positionality of the researcher for the phenomena and individuals under study,
and thereby challenges the more prevailing approaches in medicine and social
science as these instead emphasize the researcher adopting the posture of
dispassionate observer (186). In contrast with the usual emphasis on protecting
subjects from potential harm - Allen finds that when the research process is
undertaken as a respectful dialogism between two equal interlocutors,
participants enjoy positive gains from the process of interviewing and
reflecting on their cyberspace stories (186).
In these ways, in
fact, Allens approach recalls Aristotles emphasis on praxis as reshaping our ethical considerations - with the
goal of achieving phronesis (practical
wisdom or judgment): while skeptical of the possibility of abstractly codifying
research ethics (because of the sorts of differences between research venues
noted in this report), Allen concludes that Researchers can, however, develop
ethical wisdom that comes from experience with many configurations of research
in cyberspace, and report on the conditions that grounded their ethical
choices, and the results that emerged from their work in the site (186).
On this view,
ethical considerations are not separate from research considerations, but
rather an integral component, one interwoven as an explicit and intentional
dimension of the research project itself.
American Psychological Association. 1992. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Codes of Conduct (currently under revision). <http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html>
Association for Computing Machinery. 1992 (October 16). ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. <http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html>
aoir ethics working committee website: <http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir/ethics//>.
aoir ethics working committee a preliminary report. 2001. <http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.html>
Baird, Robert M., Reagan Ramsower, and Stuart E. Rosenbaum (eds.).
2000. Cyberethics: Social and Moral Issues in the Computer Age. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
A superb anthology
the best Ive seen for both philosophically rich and fine-grained,
practically-oriented analyses of specific issues (anonymity, privacy, property,
and community/citizenship/democracy).
Two articles are of
seminal importance for those interested in Internet research ethics:
Kling, Rob, Ya-ching lee, Al Teich, and Mark S. Frankel, Anonymous
Communication Policies for the Internet: Results and Recommendations of the
AAAS Conference, and Assessing Anonymous Communication on the Internet:
Policy Deliberations, both of which originally appeared in Information
Society 15 (1999): 71-77, 79-90.
In the first, Kling
et al describe their ethical foundations in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948
specifically, articles 12 and 19. They interpret these articles to mean that
recipients have the right to choose to accept or refuse anonymous
messages and that individuals do not have the right to impose messages upon an
unwilling recipient. At the same time, law enforcement agencies and commercial interests
do not have the right to interfere with individual privacy in electronic
communication, regardless of whether it is anonymous or not. (100)
They further argue
that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing the right of
free speech to all Americans, Ķapplies equally to communications in which the
initiator is identified and to those that are sent anonymously. (ibid) At the
same time, they further recognize that while the right to send communications
anonymously ought to be considered a strong right, is not absolute. Any
proposed limitations should be no more restrictive than those outlined in the
UDHR, and Those who propose to restrict this right in any way must assume the
burden of proof and must fulfill that burden to the highest level. (ibid)
Bakardjieva, Maria and Andrew Feenberg. 2001. Involving the Virtual Subject. Ethics and Information Technology 2: 233-240.
Bassett, E. H. and Kathleen ORiordan. 2002. Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 233-249. Available online: <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bassett.html>
Boehlefeld, Sharon Polancic. 1996. Doing the Right Thing: Ethical
Cyberspace Research. The Information Society 12(2), 141-152.
Boehlefeld argues
that doing ethical cyberspace research is not much different from doing any
ethical research involving human subjects (142). She recognizes utilitarian
considerations (see p. 142) in establishing the importance of treating subjects
ethically, and carefully develops guidelines for research - again, utilizing
her own work as a case study - based on the ethics statement of the Association
of Computing Machinery. In particular, she stresses anonymity and seeking
permission to use long quotes (149f.) Here she observes that The act of
seeking permission, while it may lead to loss of data, could also lead to
developing potentially valuable key informant relationships with list
participants (150) - thus reinforcing Allens more dialogical orientation
(1996).
Bruckman, Amy. 2002a. Ethical Guidelines for Research Online. <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics>
______. 2002b. Personal communication, 8 August 2002.
______. 2002c. Studying the Amateur Artist:A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 217-231. Available online: <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bruckman.html>
Buchanan, Elizabeth A. 2002. Internet Research Ethics and
Institutional Review Boards: New Challenges, New Opportunities. In Advances
in Library Administration and Organization,
19 (pp. 85-99). Edited by Edward D. Garten and Delmus Williams. Elsevier
Science.
______ (ed). 2003. Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies. Hershey, Pennsvlvania: Idea Group Publishing,
Bynum, Terrell Ward. 1998. Global Information Ethics and
the Information Revolution. In The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are
Changing Philosophy, Terrell Ward Bynum
and James H. Moor, eds., 274-291.
Bynum and Moor have
pioneered the philosophical analyses of computer-related ethical issues; they have
also centrally contributed to the reshaping of the professional discipline of
philosophy such that the American Philosophical Association now recognizes
computer ethics and other aspects of computing as indeed philosophically
significant.
In this chapter,
Bynum provides a classic historical timeline of how CE began with the work of
Norbert Wiener in the 1940s and 1950s, and develops through the second
generation of CE begun in the mid-1990s. He further provides a taxonomy of
responses to the meta-ethical questions raised by Deborah Johnson (i.e.,
whether CE represents anything genuinely new, or simply requires the
application of extant moral theories), as well as a listing of sample topics in
CE and a discussion of the ethical implications of the global reach of IT.
Danet, Brenda. 2001. Ethical Aspects in CyberPl@y,
available from <http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/papers/ethics2.pdf>.
Dreyfus, Hubert. 2001. On the Internet. New York: Routledge.
Elgesem, Dag. 2002. What is Special about the Ethical Issues in Online Research? Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 195-203. Available online: <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_elgesem.html>
Ermann, M. David, Mary B. Williams, and Michele S. Shauf. 1997. Computers,
Ethics, and Society. New York: Oxford
University Press.
An extensive
collection that seeks to provide representative discussions of diverse ethical
frameworks and characteristic positions regarding hacking, social and political
impacts (Bill Gates vs. Jeremy Rifkin and Neil Postman!), work, copyright,
privacy, and the ethical responsibilities of professionals. This would be a
useful anthology of readings to supplement a more basic text such as Deborah
Johnsons.
For our purposes,
the chapters on professional codes are perhaps most relevant in particular,
the discussion of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which
includes specific injunctions to respect privacy and honor confidentiality (pp.
317f.).
This general
discussion is followed by a chapter presenting nine case studies none of
which, however, deal with specific issues of Internet research.
Ess, Charles. 2002. Introduction. Special Issue on Internet Research Ethics, Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 177-188. Available online: <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_ess.html>
Frankel, Mark S. and Sanyin Siang (for the American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1999. Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet. <http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm>
European Commission. Privacy on the Internet - An integrated EU Approach to On-line Data Protection. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/wpdocs/wpdocs_2k.htm>
[Posted by Christine M. Hine to aoir ethics list]
Eysenbach, Gunther and Jim Till. 2001. Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal 2001(10 Nov); 323(7321): 1103-1105. <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7321/1103>
[an interesting
utilitarian-oriented perspective for medical practitioners using social science
methods - Amanda Lenhart, posted to aoir list.]
Hamelink, Cees J. 2000. The Ethics of Cyberspace. London: Sage Publications.
Hamelink, a
prominent voice in UN and EU discussions of ethical issues in IT, develops a
book-length argument for specific positions regarding rights, entitlement,
security, free speech, and democratization. Im especially taken with this work
because Hamelink draws in part on Habermas in his analyses and arguments for
what democratization via IT would look like. As well, I applaud Hamelinks
final call for a Socratic education as a necessary condition for
cyber-democracy (182-185).
Jankowski,
Nickolas and Martine van Selm. 2001 (?). Research Ethics in a Virtual World:
Some Guidelines and Illustrations <http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/crict/vmpapers/nick.htm>
Johnson, Deborah G. 2001. Computer
Ethics. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The third edition
of perhaps the classic text in computer ethics.
Johnson provides a bit more detail on spe