There is some debate as to whether content posted on social media is available for researchers to access and utilise. Some researchers have carried out their e-research covertly and collected data taking the stance that the data is already in the public domain (eg. Whiteman, 2010; Casey et al, 2014). Whiteman (2010) entered an online fanzine forum as a potential fan. It was predecided that to have disclosed her research interests would have affected the participation in the forum. She did eventually disclose her activity and offer her thesis to the site, after the forum crashed and she revealed that she had records of the activity. Casey and colleagues (2014) wanted to study young people’s authentic views of school PE, as to whether they ‘loved’ or ‘hated’ Physical Education. Posts from these two perspectives were found to be relatively easy to search for within social media traffic, with no way to find out who had posted them.

This is one of the problems for researchers. People can create an online identity for themselves when posting on social media platforms. They don’t need to provide their real name, or personal details. All the pre-13 year olds on Facebook are testamount to the ease of access to these sites even though these age groups are not allowed legally. Social media participants are offering themselves to this public space as an avatar which, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, is defined as: ‘an icon or figure representing a particular person in computer games, Internet forums, etc.‘ – a representation, rather than a presentation of self.

Another problem is that researchers would be using data for different purposes than the author first intended. Although social media participants aren’t ultimately in control of where their posting travels, as people are actively encouraged to ‘share’ and ‘retweet’ (if on twitter), they may not imagine that their comments will be analysed and reported in other public forms, such as academic papers.

In 2o12 the Association of Internet Researchers revised their ethical guidance and, in this respect, noted that ‘People may operate in public spaces but maintain strong perceptions or expectations of privacy’ (AoIR, 2012, p6). The AOiR ethical gudiance, so helpful across the range of ethical issues associated with internet research, offers a really useful set of references from researchers who have revealed and examined this issue of public versus private data, pointing us to: Bassett & O’Riordan (2002); Bromseth (2002); Gajjala (2004); Hudson and Bruckman (2004); McKee & Porter (2009); Sveningsson (2003).

A further problem raised when planning to research social media activity is that, even if you decide to be open about your research and invite participants to make available their posts for the purposes of your research study,  their posts will involve interaction with others. How do you then feel about these ‘passive’ participants in your research? Is it possible to gain informed consent for the data you collect from social media postings, especially given the first point about many being posted by ‘avatars’ rather than identifiable people?

Beyond thinking about whether and how to gain informed consent the next things to consider, to make practical steps forward to undertaking such research, are: a) to think about how you can protect those who have provided data (knowingly or unknowingly) to your study and b) what risk of harm you are opening them to? Thinking and reporting your decisions as a researcher in these online contexts will contribute to the field and body of advice for future researchers.

References

Association of Internet Researchers (2012) Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee, Approved by the Ethics Working Committee, 08/2012. Endorsed by the AOIR Executive Committee, 09/2012. Approved by the AOIR general membership, 12/2012.

Bassett, E. H., & O’Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 233-249. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bas_full.html

Bromseth, J. C. H. (2002). Public places – public activities? Methodological approaches and ethical dilemmas in research on computer-mediated communication contexts. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Researching ICTs in Context (pp. 33-61). Inter/Media Report 3/2002. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Casey, A., Hill, J. and Goodyear, V.A. (2014) “PE doesn’t stand for Physical Education. It stands for Public Embarrassment”: Voicing experiences and proffering solutions to girls’ disengagement in (pp. 37-49) Physical Education, in Flory, S.B., Tischler, A. and Sanders, S. (Eds). Sociocultural Issues in Physical Education: Case Studies for Teachers. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gajjala, R. (2004). Cyber Selves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women. Walnut Creek: Altamire Press.

Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2004). Go away: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. Information Society, 20(2), 127-139.

McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). The Ethics of Internet Research: A Rhetorical, Case-based Process. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Sveningsson-Elm, M. (2009). How do various notions of privacy influence decision making in qualitative internet research. In Markham, A. & Baym, N. (Eds.).internet Inquiry: Conversation about method (pp. 69-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Whiteman, N. (2010) Control and Contingency: Maintaining Ethical Stances in Research, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, Issue 3 (1), 6-22.