Ethics in Internet Ethnography
Yesterday I started looking into the ethical aspects of doing research through the Internet. Sveningsson (2004) explains that this is a relatively new area and that as yet there is no agreement on which guidelines are suitable and relevant for virtual communication. Each type of Internet environment is very different from another. Doing research on a chatroom is very different from examining email correspondence, for example.
In ethnography questions relating to culture are in the forefront. The researcher examines the way a group of people live their lives. He or she is “studying members’ thoughts and conceptions of the world, norms and values, as well as the practices that are attached to them” (p. 46). In a previous article, Sveningsson (2003) explains that ethnography is not a single research method, rather it is an approach to research.
Paccagnella (1997) writes of “online ethnography” and Hines (2000) writes of “virtual ethnography”.
In this article, Sveningsson (2004) examines present ethical guidelines in the light of Internet research.
The Informational Requirement:
Sveningsson (2004) notes the different roles of the researcher in ethnographic research:
- participant observer
- reporter – open observation without participation
- undercover participant observer
- hidden nonparticipant observer
If I embark on this kind of research I will have to choose between the first two groups.
Questions relating to how to inform participants in the study must be answered. The article deals mainly with participants in a chatroom situation and less with participants chosen ahead of time. I imagine that in my study, as in the PhD study being done by Ward, participants will enter the Internet environment intentionally as part of the research process. In cases like these questions of consent appear to be similar to those in traditional research methods.
Questions of confidentiality are extremely relevant. The first issue deals with the need for personal or sensitive material to be managed without unauthoirzed access. The second issue is that individuals must not be recognized.
Weblogs can be fully open to the public or closed to an authorized group. Sveningsson points out that one of the problems with the Internet is that people feel they are in a private environment when if fact they are exposing themselves in a public arena.
The third issue is that on the Internet it is often diffficult to know whether a person is who they say they are. The article deals with pseudonyms and the problem of choosing pseudonyms for chosen usernames. Usernames usually contain elements a person is using to portray a particular identity, “the nickname thus works as a ‘face’…” (p. 52).
The requirement that data be collected only for the purpose of a particular research project is not at all problematic.
The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) was set up in 2000 to develop international ethical guidelines. http://aoir.org/ This organization found that 2 variables are useful for examining materials from the Internet: (Ess, 2002, as cited in Sveningsson, 2004, p. 55)
- “How public the medium is”
- “How sensitive the shared information is”.
An important question posed by Sveningsson is “Can we really do ethnographic study of a culture tht we ourselves have created?” (p. 56).
How relevant is this in the kind of research I am planning? Again I am returning to the question of the interaction between the participants. How important is it to me to have a conversation going on? This is the group interview vs individual interview debate.
Sveningsson, M. (2004). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed), Reading in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 45-61). Sweden: Information Science Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.igi-online.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/downloadPDF/pdf/ITB9489_NdB67QZEZJ.pdf
