79C3C34C52B45572883A05D425EB0F82

Good Practice in Research: Internet-Mediated Research (2016)

http://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Internet-Mediated-Research-v1.0.pdf

http://leaux.net/URLS/ConvertAPI Text Files/F764FE755990BA6B8306E60472257046.en.txt

Examining the file media/Synopses/F764FE755990BA6B8306E60472257046.html:

This file was generated: 2020-12-01 07:29:48

Indicators in focus are typically shown highlighted in yellow;

Peer Indicators (that share the same Vulnerability association) are shown highlighted in pink;

"Outside" Indicators (those that do NOT share the same Vulnerability association) are shown highlighted in green;

Trigger Words/Phrases are shown highlighted in gray.

Link to Orphaned Trigger Words (Appendix (Indicator List, Indicator Peers, Trigger Words, Type/Vulnerability/Indicator Overlay)

Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input

Vulnerability Type	Vulnerability	Indicator	# Matches
Political	Illegal Activity	crime	1
Political	political affiliation	political	3
Social	Access to Social Goods	access	4
Social	Age	age	8
Social	Child	children	2
Social	Property Ownership	home	2
Social	Racial Minority	racial	1
Social	Soldier	military	1
Social	Student	student	1
Social	Threat of Stigma	threat	1
Social	Threat of Violence	violence	1
Social	education	education	6
Social	education	educational	1
Social	employees	employees	1
Social	philosophical differences/differences of opinion	opinion	1
General/Other	Dependent	dependent	1
General/Other	Impaired Autonomy	autonomy	1
General/Other	whistleblower	whistleblower	1

Political / Illegal Activity

Searching for indicator crime:

(return to top)
p.(None): Studies, 23(4), pp.525-535.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 11 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Day Thompson, S. (2016). Preserving Social Media. Digital Preservation Coalition
p.(None): http://www.dpconline.org/newsroom/latest-news/1616-capturing-the-conversation-new-report-highlights-
p.(None): the-need-to-preserve-social-media
p.(None): Economic and Social Research Council (2016) http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-
p.(None): applicants/research-ethics/frequently-raised-topics/internet-mediated-research/
p.(None): Elgesem, Dag (2002) What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology 4, 3
p.(None): pp.195–203
p.(None): Ess, C. (2007) ‘Internet research ethics’ The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology pp487-502. Oxford University Press
p.(None): Ess, C. (2013) Digital media ethics. Polity
p.(None): Fielding, N & Lee, R. M (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods London SAGE
p.(None): Garton, L., C. Haythornthwaite and B. Wellman (1999) ‘Studying On-Line Social Networks’, in S.G. Jones (ed.) Doing
p.(None): Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, pp. 75–106. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
p.(None): Glaser J., Dixit, J. and Green, D.P. (2002) Studying hate crime with the internet: what makes racists advocate racial
p.(None): violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1
p.(None): Glough, P, Gregory, K, Haber, B & Scannell, J (2015) The Datalogical Turn In Vannini, P. Non- Representational
p.(None): Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research p146. Routledge.
p.(None): Illingworth, N (2001) The internet matters: exploring the use of the internet as a research tool Sociological Research
p.(None): Online Vol 6 (2) Accessed at www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/illingworth.html
p.(None): International Visual Sociology Association (2009) Code of research ethics and guidelines
p.(None): http://visualsociology.org/about/ethics-and-guidelines.html Hughes, J. ed., 2012. SAGE internet research methods. Sage.
p.(None): Hunsinger, J and Krotoski, A (2010) Learning and researching in virtual worlds Learning, Media and Technology
p.(None): Vol.35(2), pp.93-97
p.(None): Ingierd, Helene and Hallvard Fossheim (Eds.) (2015) Internet Research Ethics, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 98–121
p.(None): Ipsos MORI (2014) ‘Personalisation versus Privacy’ https://www.ipsos-
p.(None): mori.com/researchpublications/trends-and-futures/1694/Personalisation-vs-Privacy.aspx
p.(None): Jaggar, A. M (1992) Feminist Ethics, In Lawrence C. Becker & Charlotte B. Becker (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Ethics.
p.(None): Garland Publishing
p.(None): Kember, S, and Zylinska, J. (2012) Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. MIT Press
...

Political / political affiliation

Searching for indicator political:

(return to top)
p.(None): replicated if those data have been subject to alterations
p.(None): 6. Special considerations, for the participant and for the researcher are required for ‘insider research’ (for
p.(None): example researching a group or network the researcher is already within or one which they will become integrated into)
p.(None): as the researcher needs to prepare for the blurring boundaries, the need to create boundaries and if they are
p.(None): disclosing as a researcher how are they best to do this. Researchers are opting to set up separate social media
p.(None): accounts for their professional profile or for a specific research project to make boundaries clear from the offset.
p.(None): 7. Are researchers obligated to anonymise data as a default action? If so how are researchers to navigate if a
p.(None): participant wish to be attributed to those data
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 7 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): 4. Private or public spaces and data
p.(None): “While much internet communication is often effectively public through greater visibility, traceability and permanence,
p.(None): it is not always apparent whether this makes it ethically acceptable to use such data freely for research purposes.”
p.(None): (BPS 2013, 7)
p.(None):
p.(None): The difficulty with privacy is that expressed concerns about privacy are often not expressed in internet user’s
p.(None): behaviour (Spiekermann et al. 2001, Morris 2016). The MRS Delphi Report5 evidenced the view that users accept that
p.(None): there is political economy or marketable value in their data without always understanding that trade and what it means
p.(None): to them. Elgesum (2002, 202) It is important that researchers consider this in a potential project and that ethical
p.(None): review takes into consideration that the public may not have informed expectations about the processing of their
p.(None): information and the political and fiscal value in their data. It is pertinent at this point to acknowledge that data
p.(None): are used by market researchers and advertisers as well as researchers and that the intent of the corporations leading
p.(None): social media platforms, as an example, is not to develop a platform where researcher’s lives are made easy or for
p.(None): research to be ethically facilitated.
p.(None):
p.(None): “As a researcher, you don’t get an ethical free pass because a user checked a box next to a link to a website’s terms
p.(None): of use. The researcher is responsible for making sure all participants are properly consented. In many cases, study
p.(None): staff will verbally go through lengthy consent forms with potential participants, point by point. Researchers will even
p.(None): quiz participants after presenting the informed consent information to make sure they really understand6.”
p.(None):
p.(None): Researchers are using research specific platforms like surveymonkey, Prolific Academic7 and callforparticipants where
p.(None): it is easier to unpick the legal and data management workings of a platform. This may alleviate the concerns for a
p.(None): researcher who is navigating the need for balance between the interests of the research, the participant and their data
p.(None): (identifiable or not) and the online platform.
p.(None):
p.(None): It is important to acknowledge again the uncertainty or lack of power researchers have o the state of data they may
p.(None): have collected but do not own. The technology available and change in legislation which may change the permanence of
p.(None): data. The European right to be forgotten (the right to request the removal of data) is potentially problematic for
...

p.(None): Ipsos MORI (2014) ‘Personalisation versus Privacy’ https://www.ipsos-
p.(None): mori.com/researchpublications/trends-and-futures/1694/Personalisation-vs-Privacy.aspx
p.(None): Jaggar, A. M (1992) Feminist Ethics, In Lawrence C. Becker & Charlotte B. Becker (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Ethics.
p.(None): Garland Publishing
p.(None): Kember, S, and Zylinska, J. (2012) Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. MIT Press
p.(None): Koene, A (2015) ‘Participant consent and withdrawal when using publicly archived data’ Panel: Privacy, ethics and
p.(None): publicness in digital media environments BAAL SIG workshop on the Ethics of Online Research Methods 17 April 2015
p.(None): University of Cardiff
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 12 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Kraft et al. Research Conducted Using Data Obtained through Online Communities: Ethical Implications of Methodological
p.(None): Limitations (2012) http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001328
p.(None): Kramer, A (2014) Untitled [online] Facebook 29 June Available at www.facebook.com Accessed 22 June 2015
p.(None): Kramer, A (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
p.(None): http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full
p.(None): Krotoski, A (2011) Wikileaks and the New, Transparent World Order Political Quarterly Vol. 82(4), pp.526- 530
p.(None): Krotoski, A (2010) Technology: Libraries of the future Nature Vol. 468(7324), pp.633-633
p.(None): Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research (A Handbook for Researching Online)
p.(None): Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K. and Staksrud, E. (2013) Risky Social Networking Practices Among 'Underage' Users: Lessons
p.(None): for Evidence-Based Policy, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 pp. 303-320
p.(None): Markham, A and Baym, N (2008) Internet inquiry: conversations about method. London: Sage
p.(None): Mann, C and Stewart, F (2000) Online Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. SAGE,
p.(None): London
p.(None): Markham, A “Disrupting top down frameworks for ethics: A proactive approach to 'doing the right thing' in digital
p.(None): research” Plenary session BAAL SIG workshop on the Ethics of Online Research Methods 17 April 2015 University of
p.(None): Cardiff
p.(None): McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, J. E. (2009) The ethics of Internet research: a rhetorical, case-based process p.31
p.(None): McBride, N K (2014)"ACTIVE ethics: an information systems ethics for the internet age", Journal of Information,
p.(None): Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp.21–44
p.(None): Morris, I-K E-Ethics and Higher Education (forthcoming) July 2016 Networking Knowledge 9(5)
...

Searching for indicator access:

(return to top)
p.(None): embedding this guidance into research culture to assist in ethical review, research practice and consideration of
p.(None): ethical issues.
p.(None):
p.(None): The aim of this document is to assist researchers, research organisations and higher education institutions at a time
p.(None): where guidance and the use of this research landscape is still emerging.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Footnote to the first edition
p.(None): As noted, the internet is an emerging research landscape. Similarly, the technologies available are also emerging.
p.(None): Consequently, UKRIO feels that giving explicit, ‘one-size-fits-all’ guidance on internet-mediated research would not be
p.(None): helpful. Instead, we wish to raise awareness of known and emerging issues of good practice in this field.
p.(None):
p.(None): As internet-mediated research evolves further, good practice will continue to develop. This document will be revised
p.(None): periodically, to reflect such developments and highlight those new challenges which emerge.
p.(None): UKRIO will seek feedback from the research community to inform the revision of this document
p.(None):
p.(None): Equally, if consensus develops on what explicit guidance on good practice in this field should look like, then this
p.(None): document will be revised accordingly.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1 British Sociological Association: “Members should take special take care when carrying out research via the
p.(None): Internet. Ethical standards for internet research are not well developed as yet. Eliciting informed consent,
p.(None): negotiating access agreements, assessing the boundaries between public and the private, and ensuring the security of
p.(None): data transmissions are all problematic in Internet research. Members who carry out research online should ensure that
p.(None): they are familiar with ongoing debates on the ethics of Internet research, and might wish to consider erring on the
p.(None): side of caution in making judgements affecting the wellbeing of online research participants.”
p.(None):
p.(None): 2 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): Defining internet-mediated research
p.(None): The term ‘internet-mediated research’ is a generalised term for undertaking research on the internet. Examples could be
p.(None): where a researcher is exploring digital lives; using social media to recruit to a study; using the internet as a data
p.(None): collection tool; using online communication methods to undertake focus groups, hold discussions or conduct interviews;
p.(None): to collect data from a social media platform to undertake textual analysis.
p.(None):
p.(None): Internet research is defined by the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the
p.(None): Humanities (NESH, 2014) as:
p.(None): 1. research on the Internet as a phenomenon in its own right, its structure and technology (production systems,
p.(None): technical design, programs, codes, etc.);
p.(None): 2. use of the Internet as a research tool (collection of data and information using informants, surveys, archives,
p.(None): logs, algorithms, etc.); and
p.(None): 3. research on production, communication and interaction using the Internet (e-mail, social media, blogs, Internet
p.(None): forums, discussion pages, comments fields, or the use of computer games, search engines, web pages, etc.).
p.(None): And it is defined by the Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Committee (2012) as inquiry that:
p.(None): 1. utilizes the internet to collect data or information, e.g., through online interviews, surveys, archiving, or
p.(None): automated means of data scraping;
p.(None): 2. studies how people use and access the internet, e.g., through collecting and observing activities or participating
p.(None): on social network sites, listservs, web sites, blogs, games, virtual worlds, or other online environments or contexts;
p.(None): 3. utilizes or engages in data processing, analysis, or storage of datasets, databanks, and/or repositories available
p.(None): via the internet;
p.(None): 4. studies software, code, and internet technologies;
p.(None): 5. examines the design or structures of systems, interfaces, pages, and elements;
p.(None): 6. employs visual and textual analysis, semiotic analysis, content analysis, or other methods of analysis to study
p.(None): the web and/or internet-facilitated images, writings, and media forms; and
p.(None): 7. studies large scale production, use, and regulation of the internet by governments, industries, corporations, and
p.(None): military forces.
p.(None): In addition to an increasing number of researchers choosing the internet for their research due to the pervasiveness of
p.(None): the internet and the digitisation of lives, there are valuable benefits and new opportunities that the internet
p.(None): provides. Glaser, J (2002, pp.177-193 and 189-90) states that “the anonymity of the internet permits research into
p.(None): marginal groups for whom self-disclosure may have costs, and where participants may be suspicious of researchers and
p.(None): outsiders.” and Illingworth (2001) suggests that the internet affords an efficient way of recruiting specialist
p.(None): participants. Both Glaser and Illingworth are suggesting that the internet allows
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 3 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
...

p.(None): from the researcher, not just to the research participant but also to their networked relations.
p.(None): 2. It is not feasible for data to be a discrete dataset and owned or controlled by the researcher- In the conference
p.(None): proceedings of the Academy of Social Sciences conference on Social Media (21 March 2016) Professor Susan Halford in her
p.(None): keynote stated that ethical review in research organisations makes the following assumptions that datasets are
p.(None): discrete; are of a micro scale and therefore managed and owned by the researcher; and that researchers are looking at
p.(None): individuals rather than tracing of social networks, social groups or connections.
p.(None): 3. Knowing that dataset can be altered or removed, how does a researcher navigate this; how does this affect the
p.(None): research record; how does that allow replicability/reproducibility of a dataset?
p.(None): 4. How does a researcher navigate the legal framework within which they’re working – especially in areas where there
p.(None): is clear conflict, as an example the Twitter terms and conditions state that any quotes (verbatim or paraphrased) must
p.(None): include the full twitter handle and should not be altered however if a researcher is attempting to paraphrase, use
p.(None): pseudonym, protect the identity by anonymising or using pseudonym is a researcher excepted to breach the terms and
p.(None): conditions of the platform they are collecting data from? How is a researcher expected to balance the interests of the
p.(None): participant, the researcher’s institution and the platform they are collecting data from?
p.(None): 5. There is a turn to maximise the value of research data by encouraging data sharing, re-use and open-access
p.(None): publication – this can be problematic if those data are subject to potential change if sourced from its originator or
p.(None): if sharing from e.g. a data repository how can this be stored and retained and are the data valid if they cannot be
p.(None): replicated if those data have been subject to alterations
p.(None): 6. Special considerations, for the participant and for the researcher are required for ‘insider research’ (for
p.(None): example researching a group or network the researcher is already within or one which they will become integrated into)
p.(None): as the researcher needs to prepare for the blurring boundaries, the need to create boundaries and if they are
p.(None): disclosing as a researcher how are they best to do this. Researchers are opting to set up separate social media
p.(None): accounts for their professional profile or for a specific research project to make boundaries clear from the offset.
p.(None): 7. Are researchers obligated to anonymise data as a default action? If so how are researchers to navigate if a
p.(None): participant wish to be attributed to those data
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 7 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): 4. Private or public spaces and data
p.(None): “While much internet communication is often effectively public through greater visibility, traceability and permanence,
p.(None): it is not always apparent whether this makes it ethically acceptable to use such data freely for research purposes.”
p.(None): (BPS 2013, 7)
p.(None):
...

p.(None): are used by market researchers and advertisers as well as researchers and that the intent of the corporations leading
p.(None): social media platforms, as an example, is not to develop a platform where researcher’s lives are made easy or for
p.(None): research to be ethically facilitated.
p.(None):
p.(None): “As a researcher, you don’t get an ethical free pass because a user checked a box next to a link to a website’s terms
p.(None): of use. The researcher is responsible for making sure all participants are properly consented. In many cases, study
p.(None): staff will verbally go through lengthy consent forms with potential participants, point by point. Researchers will even
p.(None): quiz participants after presenting the informed consent information to make sure they really understand6.”
p.(None):
p.(None): Researchers are using research specific platforms like surveymonkey, Prolific Academic7 and callforparticipants where
p.(None): it is easier to unpick the legal and data management workings of a platform. This may alleviate the concerns for a
p.(None): researcher who is navigating the need for balance between the interests of the research, the participant and their data
p.(None): (identifiable or not) and the online platform.
p.(None):
p.(None): It is important to acknowledge again the uncertainty or lack of power researchers have o the state of data they may
p.(None): have collected but do not own. The technology available and change in legislation which may change the permanence of
p.(None): data. The European right to be forgotten (the right to request the removal of data) is potentially problematic for
p.(None): research replicability or reproducibility. A researcher can access tools which can uncover removed data, which may or
p.(None): may not be considered hacking, or can potentially be using research data which has since been removed. (Morris 2016).
p.(None):
p.(None): Researchers need to be supported in the acknowledgement that some of the complexities that researchers are being asked
p.(None): to navigate while researching online, particularly in social media for a, which is a landscape led by conflicts between
p.(None): the central interests of research and the interests of those external to the research process (Elgesum 2002, 197).
p.(None):
p.(None): 5 Acknowledgement: Panel: Privacy, ethics and publicness in digital media environments Dr Ansgar Koene “Participant
p.(None): consent and withdrawal when using publicly archived data” HORIZON Digital Economy Research, University of Nottingham
p.(None): BAAL SIG workshop on the Ethics of Online Research Methods 17 April 2015
p.(None): 6 Arthur, Charles quoting Masnick, Max June 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-
p.(None): emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say Accessed 22/06/15
p.(None): 7 Prolific Academic site http://www.prolific.ac/, it is acknowledged that this site is purely for recruitment but acts
p.(None): as an example of academics taking the online world into their own hands.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 8 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): The complexities, lack of control and uncertainty could be considered as similar to ethnographic methods which have
...

Searching for indicator age:

(return to top)
p.(None): potential of disruption of a community and the potential harm of disclosing as a researcher. BPS (2013) suggest seeking
p.(None): gatekeeper permission from a forum moderator if a researcher is navigating how to approach a group and negotiating the
p.(None): benefits or risks of disclosing as a researcher to a group. Particular consideration should be given to data or people
p.(None): where the interaction or data collection are undertaken in a password protected environment or environment that may be
p.(None): perceived by the user as private.
p.(None):
p.(None): Deception
p.(None): The British Psychological Society are a useful resource when considering using deception within a study. The use of
p.(None): deception is sometimes accompanied by a debriefing process following the research activity. The use of deception must
p.(None): be justifiable and balanced with the research objective and the anticipated risks or harms.
p.(None):
p.(None): Valid consent
p.(None): As with deception of identity it could also be said that the anonymity permitted by the internet may allow for
p.(None): deception and the challenge of ensuring that a participant has fully understood the study and therefore giving fully
p.(None): informed and valid consent. The chosen approach of informing potential participants and going consent needs to be
p.(None): appropriate and proportionate to the sensitivity of the topic; the potential group(s); and the nature of the study.
p.(None):
p.(None): Age
p.(None): The verification of identity, age and of valid consent is challenging. Age is perhaps the most challenging when
p.(None): considering either researching or not researching with children and young people. If a research project intends to not
p.(None): include minors, there are ways attempting to mitigate against that risk but as with many risks in research there may
p.(None): not be method of eliminating all risk. Uncertainty is a characteristic of
p.(None):
p.(None): 5 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): much research online during the research activity and beyond the activity with regard to the data which is touched on
p.(None): further in the data management section of this document. To use social media as an example, on some social media
p.(None): platforms there are minimum age limits - e.g. Facebook asks users to be 13 and older; however, age is not verified in
p.(None): what may be seen in the ‘off line’ world as a valid method of verifying age and therefore researching on that social
p.(None): media platform may involve minors unknowingly. This must be considered on a case by case basis within ethical review
p.(None): dependant on the sensitivity of the topic and the approach of the researcher.
p.(None):
p.(None): Researchers are often using a social media platform without having any capacity to control the age of users, the other
p.(None): uses of data and the fate of those data. Elgesum (2002, 197) acknowledges that the media often have an agenda that is
p.(None): different than of a research project and this puts researchers into a precarious position between using a platform
p.(None): which is out of their control and making attempts to protect research participants and their data to avoid causing
p.(None): harm.
p.(None):
p.(None): The NESH (2014) guidelines state that “Researchers must not assume that all Internet users have a conscious view of or
p.(None): knowledge of which information will actually be made public and which information will not be made public.” It was
p.(None): indicated from the backlash of the Facebook emotional contagion study4 (Kramer et al. 2013) that researchers cannot
p.(None): assume how informed social media users are about how their data are being used potentially without their knowing.
p.(None):
p.(None): Research involving security-sensitive material
p.(None): Internet-mediated research, as with other forms of research, can involve security-sensitive material. UKRIO published a
p.(None): position statement on this issue in February 2016, included as Annex 1 of this document.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 3. Social media
p.(None): Social media research requires just as broad a definition as internet-mediated research. Social media research could
p.(None): entail any of the following:
p.(None): 1. Collecting data generated by the web (e.g. this could include data generated by purchases, interests, movement
p.(None): online demonstrating what people do as opposed to what people say, as well as data generated by the individual)
p.(None): 2. Data mining
...

p.(None): Kramer, A (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
p.(None): http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full
p.(None): Krotoski, A (2011) Wikileaks and the New, Transparent World Order Political Quarterly Vol. 82(4), pp.526- 530
p.(None): Krotoski, A (2010) Technology: Libraries of the future Nature Vol. 468(7324), pp.633-633
p.(None): Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research (A Handbook for Researching Online)
p.(None): Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K. and Staksrud, E. (2013) Risky Social Networking Practices Among 'Underage' Users: Lessons
p.(None): for Evidence-Based Policy, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 pp. 303-320
p.(None): Markham, A and Baym, N (2008) Internet inquiry: conversations about method. London: Sage
p.(None): Mann, C and Stewart, F (2000) Online Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. SAGE,
p.(None): London
p.(None): Markham, A “Disrupting top down frameworks for ethics: A proactive approach to 'doing the right thing' in digital
p.(None): research” Plenary session BAAL SIG workshop on the Ethics of Online Research Methods 17 April 2015 University of
p.(None): Cardiff
p.(None): McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, J. E. (2009) The ethics of Internet research: a rhetorical, case-based process p.31
p.(None): McBride, N K (2014)"ACTIVE ethics: an information systems ethics for the internet age", Journal of Information,
p.(None): Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp.21–44
p.(None): Morris, I-K E-Ethics and Higher Education (forthcoming) July 2016 Networking Knowledge 9(5)
p.(None): MRS Delphi Group Report (2015) ‘Private Lives?’ [Online] Available at https://www.mrs.org.uk/campaign/video/privacy
p.(None): Accessed 22 June 2015
p.(None): Murthy, D., 2008. Digital ethnography an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology,
p.(None): 42(5), pp.837-855.
p.(None): The New Social Media, New Social Science blog http://nsmnss.blogspot.co.uk/
p.(None): The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (2014)
p.(None): Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research
p.(None): Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R. and Greenwald, A.G. (2002) E-Research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological
p.(None): research on the internet, Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, pp177–93.
p.(None): Ruppert, Evelyn (2015) Who Owns Big Data. Discover Society (23)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 13 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Royal Statistical Society (2014). What Should Happen to your Data?
p.(None): http://www.rss.org.uk/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_manifesto/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_democracy_s
p.(None): ub/Data_manifesto.aspx?hkey=5dd70207-82e7-4166-93fd-bcf9a2a1e496
...

Searching for indicator children:

(return to top)
p.(None): benefits or risks of disclosing as a researcher to a group. Particular consideration should be given to data or people
p.(None): where the interaction or data collection are undertaken in a password protected environment or environment that may be
p.(None): perceived by the user as private.
p.(None):
p.(None): Deception
p.(None): The British Psychological Society are a useful resource when considering using deception within a study. The use of
p.(None): deception is sometimes accompanied by a debriefing process following the research activity. The use of deception must
p.(None): be justifiable and balanced with the research objective and the anticipated risks or harms.
p.(None):
p.(None): Valid consent
p.(None): As with deception of identity it could also be said that the anonymity permitted by the internet may allow for
p.(None): deception and the challenge of ensuring that a participant has fully understood the study and therefore giving fully
p.(None): informed and valid consent. The chosen approach of informing potential participants and going consent needs to be
p.(None): appropriate and proportionate to the sensitivity of the topic; the potential group(s); and the nature of the study.
p.(None):
p.(None): Age
p.(None): The verification of identity, age and of valid consent is challenging. Age is perhaps the most challenging when
p.(None): considering either researching or not researching with children and young people. If a research project intends to not
p.(None): include minors, there are ways attempting to mitigate against that risk but as with many risks in research there may
p.(None): not be method of eliminating all risk. Uncertainty is a characteristic of
p.(None):
p.(None): 5 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): much research online during the research activity and beyond the activity with regard to the data which is touched on
p.(None): further in the data management section of this document. To use social media as an example, on some social media
p.(None): platforms there are minimum age limits - e.g. Facebook asks users to be 13 and older; however, age is not verified in
p.(None): what may be seen in the ‘off line’ world as a valid method of verifying age and therefore researching on that social
p.(None): media platform may involve minors unknowingly. This must be considered on a case by case basis within ethical review
p.(None): dependant on the sensitivity of the topic and the approach of the researcher.
p.(None):
p.(None): Researchers are often using a social media platform without having any capacity to control the age of users, the other
p.(None): uses of data and the fate of those data. Elgesum (2002, 197) acknowledges that the media often have an agenda that is
...

p.(None): research on the internet, Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, pp177–93.
p.(None): Ruppert, Evelyn (2015) Who Owns Big Data. Discover Society (23)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 13 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Royal Statistical Society (2014). What Should Happen to your Data?
p.(None): http://www.rss.org.uk/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_manifesto/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_democracy_s
p.(None): ub/Data_manifesto.aspx?hkey=5dd70207-82e7-4166-93fd-bcf9a2a1e496
p.(None): Shapiro, R. B. & Ossorio, P. N. (2013) Regulation of Online Social Network Studies Science Vol. 339
p.(None): Scharf, B. (1999) Beyond Netiquette: The Ethics of Doing Naturalistic Discourse Research on the Internet. In Jones, S.
p.(None): (Ed) Doing Internet Research, pp. 243–256. Sage, London
p.(None): Snee, H Methodological Innovations August 2013 vol. 8 no. 2 52-67 Making ethical decisions in an online context:
p.(None): Reflections on using blogs to explore narratives of experience http://mio.sagepub.com/content/8/2/52.abstract
p.(None): Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., & Berendt, B. (2001, October). E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce: privacy
p.(None): preferences versus actual behaviour. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 38-47). ACM.
p.(None): Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., & Berendt, B. (2001) "Stated Privacy Preferences versus actual behaviour in EC
p.(None): environments: A Reality Check." e-Finance. Springer Berlin Heidelberg pp.129-147.
p.(None): Staksrud, E (2015) ‘Counting Children. On research methodology, ethics and policy development’, in Ingierd, H. and
p.(None): Fossheim, H. (Eds.), Internet Research Ethics. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk pp. 98–121
p.(None): Tagg, C and Spilioti, T (2015) Summary of conference proceedings of the Ethics of Online Research Methods workshop held
p.(None): at Cardiff University 16-17 April 2015
p.(None): UK Data Service legal and ethical issues guidance https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/manage-data/legal-ethical
p.(None): Research Councils UK (2013). Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/researchintegrity/
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office (2009). Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct
p.(None): [online]. Available at www.ukrio.org/publications/
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office (2016). Position statement on research involving security-sensitive material [online].
p.(None): Available at www.ukrio.org/publications/
p.(None): Universities UK (2012). Oversight of security-sensitive research material in UK universities
p.(None): Universities UK et al. (2012). The Concordat to Support Research Integrity [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2012/the-concordat-to-support-
p.(None): research-integrity.pdf
p.(None): 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html
...

Searching for indicator home:

(return to top)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 8 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): The complexities, lack of control and uncertainty could be considered as similar to ethnographic methods which have
p.(None): learned to use a situational ethics where professional discretion and self-reflexivity are crucial. It could be
p.(None): proposed that undertaking research online, particularly using social media platforms, could share a similar approach.
p.(None): Situational ethics is used in the Association of Internet Researchers guidance (2012) where the focus is on situation
p.(None): ethics and contextual reflection, asking questions of values, discussion and negotiation.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 5. Data management
p.(None): Robust research data management are an indicator of academic rigour and therefore important regardless of research
p.(None): being undertaken on or off-line. This being said, research online can present specific data management difficulties
p.(None): predominantly because the researcher is invariably not in complete control of the original dataset and can therefore
p.(None): only be in control of the dataset collected by the researcher.
p.(None):
p.(None): Unless a researcher is using a tool where the country of users or participants can be limited, online studies have no
p.(None): geographic boundaries. The researcher must meet the data protection standards and legislation of their home institution
p.(None): and of the countries in which they are undertaking research, however if the country of a user is not disclosed to the
p.(None): researcher this places the researcher in a predicament to meet all data protection expectations – in this situation the
p.(None): researcher should be encouraged to meet the standards and legislation applicable to their home institution.
p.(None):
p.(None): Considerations are required for
p.(None): 1. Data protection considerations
p.(None): 2. Data security and sharing
p.(None): 3. Copyright law and any other relevant legislation
p.(None): 4. Presenting findings
p.(None): 5. Anonymity
p.(None): 6. the legal and/or moral duty to disclose or break confidentiality and the limitations of that if participants are
p.(None): not known to the researcher.
p.(None): The consideration of data management is growing, particularly for European funded research and therefore the guidance
p.(None): available to researchers is growing. Some institutions, particularly in the UK, are expanding their capacity for
p.(None): research data management which is predominantly being led by libraries.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 9 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): Annex 1: UKRIO position statement on research involving security- sensitive material (February 2016)
p.(None):
p.(None): Internet-mediated research, as with other forms of research, can involve security-sensitive material. UKRIO published
p.(None): the following position statement on this issue in February 2016, available at www.ukrio.org/publications/ .
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
...

Searching for indicator racial:

Searching for indicator military:

(return to top)
p.(None): technical design, programs, codes, etc.);
p.(None): 2. use of the Internet as a research tool (collection of data and information using informants, surveys, archives,
p.(None): logs, algorithms, etc.); and
p.(None): 3. research on production, communication and interaction using the Internet (e-mail, social media, blogs, Internet
p.(None): forums, discussion pages, comments fields, or the use of computer games, search engines, web pages, etc.).
p.(None): And it is defined by the Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Committee (2012) as inquiry that:
p.(None): 1. utilizes the internet to collect data or information, e.g., through online interviews, surveys, archiving, or
p.(None): automated means of data scraping;
p.(None): 2. studies how people use and access the internet, e.g., through collecting and observing activities or participating
p.(None): on social network sites, listservs, web sites, blogs, games, virtual worlds, or other online environments or contexts;
p.(None): 3. utilizes or engages in data processing, analysis, or storage of datasets, databanks, and/or repositories available
p.(None): via the internet;
p.(None): 4. studies software, code, and internet technologies;
p.(None): 5. examines the design or structures of systems, interfaces, pages, and elements;
p.(None): 6. employs visual and textual analysis, semiotic analysis, content analysis, or other methods of analysis to study
p.(None): the web and/or internet-facilitated images, writings, and media forms; and
p.(None): 7. studies large scale production, use, and regulation of the internet by governments, industries, corporations, and
p.(None): military forces.
p.(None): In addition to an increasing number of researchers choosing the internet for their research due to the pervasiveness of
p.(None): the internet and the digitisation of lives, there are valuable benefits and new opportunities that the internet
p.(None): provides. Glaser, J (2002, pp.177-193 and 189-90) states that “the anonymity of the internet permits research into
p.(None): marginal groups for whom self-disclosure may have costs, and where participants may be suspicious of researchers and
p.(None): outsiders.” and Illingworth (2001) suggests that the internet affords an efficient way of recruiting specialist
p.(None): participants. Both Glaser and Illingworth are suggesting that the internet allows
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 3 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): researchers to recruit hard to reach groups where the anonymity or distance provided by the internet allows internet
p.(None): users and research participants to disclose or speak about something sensitive or challenging. With such groups it is
p.(None): important to consider the disruption that research could cause to supportive communities that develop online and to the
p.(None): intent individuals have when going online to seek support or community.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1. The ethical principles applied within ethical review in the UK
p.(None): The British Psychological Society (2013, p2) suggests a return to the first ethical principles as the landscape of
p.(None): internet-mediated research is and will be rapidly changing. The development of the practice of research ethics
...

Searching for indicator student:

(return to top)
p.(None): v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Good practice in research: Internet-mediated research December 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): Introduction
p.(None): This document is part of a series from the UK Research Integrity Office giving guidance on particular aspects of
p.(None): academic, scientific and medical research. It focusses on ethical considerations and other issues applicable to
p.(None): internet-mediated research. The guidance covers issues relevant to all disciplines of research but does not put forward
p.(None): a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.
p.(None):
p.(None): The aim is not to be prescriptive, but to highlight particular challenges relating to internet-mediated research and
p.(None): foster discussion on what might constitute good practice in this field. As with all of our publications, it is
p.(None): underpinned by ‘lessons learned’ from UKRIO’s confidential Advisory Service on the conduct of research, which has
p.(None): operated since 2006 and covers all disciplines, from the arts and the humanities to health and biomedicine.
p.(None):
p.(None): Research organisations will be able to use this guidance to raise awareness of the practicalities of internet- mediated
p.(None): research, and also as material for staff and student development and training. This document can also be used as a
p.(None): reference tool by organisations who wish to create specific policies on internet-mediated research or revise existing
p.(None): policies. The document complements existing guidance on internet-mediated research, such as provided by the Association
p.(None): of Internet Researchers, the British Psychological Society and the Economic and Social Research Council, and does not
p.(None): seek to replace them.
p.(None):
p.(None): Advice and guidance from UKRIO is not mandatory but instead reflects and reinforces best practice. As the internet is
p.(None): an emerging research landscape, and technologies available to researchers are also emerging, it is not recommended to
p.(None): apply the guidance in this document prescriptively.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): It is unsurprising that, as our lives have become mediated and digitised, and the internet has become pervasive, an
p.(None): increasing number of researchers are choosing the internet as a tool for data collection, for recruitment and as a
p.(None): research landscape. The ubiquitous nature of the internet and the digitisation of our lives is reflected in the number
p.(None): of disciplines interested in using the internet as a research tool or landscape. In turn, this new landscape requires
p.(None): consideration of the ethics in research practice online.
p.(None):
...

Searching for indicator threat:

(return to top)
p.(None): important to consider the disruption that research could cause to supportive communities that develop online and to the
p.(None): intent individuals have when going online to seek support or community.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1. The ethical principles applied within ethical review in the UK
p.(None): The British Psychological Society (2013, p2) suggests a return to the first ethical principles as the landscape of
p.(None): internet-mediated research is and will be rapidly changing. The development of the practice of research ethics
p.(None): committees (in particular at a University level) are informed by ethical principles developed internationally and the
p.(None): guidance from the Association of Research Ethics Committees, GAFREC principles2 (Governance Arrangements for Research
p.(None): Ethics Committees, 2011), UKRIO and professional membership bodies.
p.(None):
p.(None): The Association of Research Ethics Committees ‘Framework of Policies and Procedures for University Research Ethics
p.(None): Committees’ (2013) states that the basic principles of ethical research are3:
p.(None): • Autonomy: The participant must normally be as aware as possible of what the research is for and be free to take
p.(None): part in it without coercion or penalty for not taking part, and also free to withdraw at any time without giving a
p.(None): reason and without a threat of any adverse effect.
p.(None): • Beneficence: The research must be worthwhile in itself and have beneficial effects that outweigh any risks; it
p.(None): follows that the methodology must be sound so that best results will be yielded.
p.(None): • Non-maleficence: Any possible harm must be avoided or at least mitigated by robust precautions.
p.(None): • Confidentiality: Personal data must remain unknown to all but the research team (unless the participant agrees
p.(None): otherwise or in cases where there is an overriding public interest, or where participants wish their voices to be heard
p.(None): and identified).
p.(None): • Integrity: The researcher must be open about any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and conduct their
p.(None): research in a way that meets recognised standards of research integrity.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 2. Specific items to consider
p.(None): Offline, online or neither
p.(None): “Often organisations simply cannot keep up, providing internet researchers with too little guidance and inappropriate
p.(None): guidance that applies overboard generalisations or make false comparisons between offline
p.(None):
p.(None): 2 http://www.hra.nhs.uk/resources/research-legislation-and-governance/governance-arrangements-for-research-ethics-
p.(None): committees/
p.(None): 3 The Association of Research Ethics Committees ‘Framework of Policies and Procedures for University Research Ethics
p.(None): Committees’ 2013
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 4 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
...

Searching for indicator violence:

(return to top)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 11 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Day Thompson, S. (2016). Preserving Social Media. Digital Preservation Coalition
p.(None): http://www.dpconline.org/newsroom/latest-news/1616-capturing-the-conversation-new-report-highlights-
p.(None): the-need-to-preserve-social-media
p.(None): Economic and Social Research Council (2016) http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-
p.(None): applicants/research-ethics/frequently-raised-topics/internet-mediated-research/
p.(None): Elgesem, Dag (2002) What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology 4, 3
p.(None): pp.195–203
p.(None): Ess, C. (2007) ‘Internet research ethics’ The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology pp487-502. Oxford University Press
p.(None): Ess, C. (2013) Digital media ethics. Polity
p.(None): Fielding, N & Lee, R. M (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods London SAGE
p.(None): Garton, L., C. Haythornthwaite and B. Wellman (1999) ‘Studying On-Line Social Networks’, in S.G. Jones (ed.) Doing
p.(None): Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, pp. 75–106. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
p.(None): Glaser J., Dixit, J. and Green, D.P. (2002) Studying hate crime with the internet: what makes racists advocate racial
p.(None): violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1
p.(None): Glough, P, Gregory, K, Haber, B & Scannell, J (2015) The Datalogical Turn In Vannini, P. Non- Representational
p.(None): Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research p146. Routledge.
p.(None): Illingworth, N (2001) The internet matters: exploring the use of the internet as a research tool Sociological Research
p.(None): Online Vol 6 (2) Accessed at www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/illingworth.html
p.(None): International Visual Sociology Association (2009) Code of research ethics and guidelines
p.(None): http://visualsociology.org/about/ethics-and-guidelines.html Hughes, J. ed., 2012. SAGE internet research methods. Sage.
p.(None): Hunsinger, J and Krotoski, A (2010) Learning and researching in virtual worlds Learning, Media and Technology
p.(None): Vol.35(2), pp.93-97
p.(None): Ingierd, Helene and Hallvard Fossheim (Eds.) (2015) Internet Research Ethics, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 98–121
p.(None): Ipsos MORI (2014) ‘Personalisation versus Privacy’ https://www.ipsos-
p.(None): mori.com/researchpublications/trends-and-futures/1694/Personalisation-vs-Privacy.aspx
p.(None): Jaggar, A. M (1992) Feminist Ethics, In Lawrence C. Becker & Charlotte B. Becker (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Ethics.
p.(None): Garland Publishing
p.(None): Kember, S, and Zylinska, J. (2012) Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. MIT Press
p.(None): Koene, A (2015) ‘Participant consent and withdrawal when using publicly archived data’ Panel: Privacy, ethics and
...

Searching for indicator education:

(return to top)
p.(None): reference tool by organisations who wish to create specific policies on internet-mediated research or revise existing
p.(None): policies. The document complements existing guidance on internet-mediated research, such as provided by the Association
p.(None): of Internet Researchers, the British Psychological Society and the Economic and Social Research Council, and does not
p.(None): seek to replace them.
p.(None):
p.(None): Advice and guidance from UKRIO is not mandatory but instead reflects and reinforces best practice. As the internet is
p.(None): an emerging research landscape, and technologies available to researchers are also emerging, it is not recommended to
p.(None): apply the guidance in this document prescriptively.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): It is unsurprising that, as our lives have become mediated and digitised, and the internet has become pervasive, an
p.(None): increasing number of researchers are choosing the internet as a tool for data collection, for recruitment and as a
p.(None): research landscape. The ubiquitous nature of the internet and the digitisation of our lives is reflected in the number
p.(None): of disciplines interested in using the internet as a research tool or landscape. In turn, this new landscape requires
p.(None): consideration of the ethics in research practice online.
p.(None):
p.(None): Research Ethics Committees (REC), whether operating in higher education organisations or at a national level, are
p.(None): currently assessing the ethical issues related to internet-mediated research without much guidance or informed support
p.(None): available (Morris, 2016; McKee and Porter, 2009; British Sociological Association1). Research Councils and professional
p.(None): membership bodies in the UK are becoming reactive to these issues and developing guidance. However, this scarcity of
p.(None): literature leads to ethical review occurring without sufficient guidance. This is challenging for higher education
p.(None): organisations and researchers alike, and may limit research that is subject to higher education ethical review
p.(None): processes.
p.(None):
p.(None): In addition to existing guidance on internet-mediated research, the guidance presented here by UKRIO will assist in
p.(None): RECs developing their knowledge around internet-mediated research, embedding relevant principles and considerations and
p.(None): embedding this guidance into research culture to assist in ethical review, research practice and consideration of
p.(None): ethical issues.
p.(None):
p.(None): The aim of this document is to assist researchers, research organisations and higher education institutions at a time
p.(None): where guidance and the use of this research landscape is still emerging.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Footnote to the first edition
p.(None): As noted, the internet is an emerging research landscape. Similarly, the technologies available are also emerging.
p.(None): Consequently, UKRIO feels that giving explicit, ‘one-size-fits-all’ guidance on internet-mediated research would not be
p.(None): helpful. Instead, we wish to raise awareness of known and emerging issues of good practice in this field.
p.(None):
p.(None): As internet-mediated research evolves further, good practice will continue to develop. This document will be revised
p.(None): periodically, to reflect such developments and highlight those new challenges which emerge.
p.(None): UKRIO will seek feedback from the research community to inform the revision of this document
p.(None):
p.(None): Equally, if consensus develops on what explicit guidance on good practice in this field should look like, then this
p.(None): document will be revised accordingly.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1 British Sociological Association: “Members should take special take care when carrying out research via the
p.(None): Internet. Ethical standards for internet research are not well developed as yet. Eliciting informed consent,
p.(None): negotiating access agreements, assessing the boundaries between public and the private, and ensuring the security of
p.(None): data transmissions are all problematic in Internet research. Members who carry out research online should ensure that
p.(None): they are familiar with ongoing debates on the ethics of Internet research, and might wish to consider erring on the
...

p.(None): Krotoski, A (2010) Technology: Libraries of the future Nature Vol. 468(7324), pp.633-633
p.(None): Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research (A Handbook for Researching Online)
p.(None): Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K. and Staksrud, E. (2013) Risky Social Networking Practices Among 'Underage' Users: Lessons
p.(None): for Evidence-Based Policy, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 pp. 303-320
p.(None): Markham, A and Baym, N (2008) Internet inquiry: conversations about method. London: Sage
p.(None): Mann, C and Stewart, F (2000) Online Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. SAGE,
p.(None): London
p.(None): Markham, A “Disrupting top down frameworks for ethics: A proactive approach to 'doing the right thing' in digital
p.(None): research” Plenary session BAAL SIG workshop on the Ethics of Online Research Methods 17 April 2015 University of
p.(None): Cardiff
p.(None): McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, J. E. (2009) The ethics of Internet research: a rhetorical, case-based process p.31
p.(None): McBride, N K (2014)"ACTIVE ethics: an information systems ethics for the internet age", Journal of Information,
p.(None): Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp.21–44
p.(None): Morris, I-K E-Ethics and Higher Education (forthcoming) July 2016 Networking Knowledge 9(5)
p.(None): MRS Delphi Group Report (2015) ‘Private Lives?’ [Online] Available at https://www.mrs.org.uk/campaign/video/privacy
p.(None): Accessed 22 June 2015
p.(None): Murthy, D., 2008. Digital ethnography an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology,
p.(None): 42(5), pp.837-855.
p.(None): The New Social Media, New Social Science blog http://nsmnss.blogspot.co.uk/
p.(None): The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (2014)
p.(None): Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research
p.(None): Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R. and Greenwald, A.G. (2002) E-Research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological
p.(None): research on the internet, Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, pp177–93.
p.(None): Ruppert, Evelyn (2015) Who Owns Big Data. Discover Society (23)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 13 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Royal Statistical Society (2014). What Should Happen to your Data?
p.(None): http://www.rss.org.uk/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_manifesto/RSS/Influencing_Change/Data_democracy_s
p.(None): ub/Data_manifesto.aspx?hkey=5dd70207-82e7-4166-93fd-bcf9a2a1e496
p.(None): Shapiro, R. B. & Ossorio, P. N. (2013) Regulation of Online Social Network Studies Science Vol. 339
p.(None): Scharf, B. (1999) Beyond Netiquette: The Ethics of Doing Naturalistic Discourse Research on the Internet. In Jones, S.
p.(None): (Ed) Doing Internet Research, pp. 243–256. Sage, London
...

p.(None): Universities UK et al. (2012). The Concordat to Support Research Integrity [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2012/the-concordat-to-support-
p.(None): research-integrity.pdf
p.(None): 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2010. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html
p.(None): Zwitter, A. (2014) Big Data Ethics, Big Data & Society, 1, pp.1-6 [online]. Available at
p.(None): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2553758
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 14 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) is an independent charity, offering support to the public, researchers and
p.(None): organisations to further good practice in academic, scientific and medical research. We welcome enquiries on any issues
p.(None): relating to the conduct of research, whether promoting good research practice, seeking help with a particular research
p.(None): project or investigating cases of alleged fraud and misconduct.
p.(None): Since 2006, UKRIO has provided independent, expert and confidential support across all disciplines of research, from
p.(None): the arts and humanities to the life sciences. We cover all research sectors: higher education, the NHS, private sector
p.(None): organisations and charities. No other organisation in the UK has comparable expertise in providing such support in the
p.(None): field of research integrity.
p.(None): UKRIO welcomes enquiries on any issues relating to the conduct of research, whether promoting good research practice,
p.(None): seeking help with a particular research project or investigating cases of alleged fraud and misconduct.
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office
p.(None): Sussex Innovation Croydon, No. 1 Croydon, 12-16 Addiscombe Road, Croydon CR0 0XT Tel.: +44 (0)20 3828 1325 Email:
p.(None): info@ukrio.org Web: www.ukrio.org Twitter: @UKRIO Registered Charity No: 1147061 Registered Company No: 7444269
p.(None): © UK Research Integrity Office 2016. This material may be copied or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledged
p.(None): and the material, wholly or in part, is not used for commercial gain. Use of the material for commercial gain requires
p.(None): the prior written permission of the UK Research Integrity Office
p.(None): For the full list of UKRIO publications, visit www.ukrio.org
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
...

Searching for indicator educational:

(return to top)
p.(None): Sussex), with James Parry of UKRIO.
p.(None):
p.(None): We would like to thank Professor Mark Everist, Dr Ron Iphofen, Dr John Oates and Dr Andrew Rawnsley for their
p.(None): invaluable help and feedback. We would also like to thank the UKRIO subscribers who commented on a draft version of
p.(None): the document.
p.(None):
p.(None): UKRIO wishes to acknowledge the use of the following documents in the development of this publication:
p.(None):
p.(None): Arthur, C (2014) ‘Facebook emotion study breached ethical guidelines, researchers say’ [online] 30 June. Available at
p.(None): http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical- guidelines-researchers-say.
p.(None): Accessed 22 June 2015
p.(None): Association of Internet Researchers (2012) Ethical decision-making and internet research 2.0
p.(None): http://aoir.org/ethics/
p.(None): Barsky, E. and M. Purdon (2006) ‘Introducing Web 2.0: Social Networking and Social Bookmarking for Health Librarians’,
p.(None): Journal of the Canadian Health Library Association 27(3): pp65–7
p.(None): Bassett, E and O’Riordan. K. (2002) ‘Ethics of Internet Research: contesting the human subjects research model’ Ethics
p.(None): and Information Technology, 4 (3): pp232-47.
p.(None): Berry, D M (2004) Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation - an open source approach. Internet Research
p.(None): Vol.14(4), pp.323-332
p.(None): Boyd, D & Crawford, K (2012) Critical Questions for Big Data, Information, Communication & Society, 15:5, 662-679
p.(None): British Educational Research Association (2014) Ethical issues in online research
p.(None): https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-issues-in-online-research
p.(None): British Psychological Society (2013) Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research
p.(None): http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-and-guidelines/research-guidelines-policy-documents/research- guidelines-poli
p.(None): Brotsky, S.R. and Giles, D. (2007) Inside the “pro-ana” community: A covert online participant observation.
p.(None): Eating disorders Vol.15 Iss2 pp. 93-109.
p.(None): The Cabinet Office data science blog https://data.blog.gov.uk/category/data-science/
p.(None): Coleman, G (2014) Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: the many faces of Anonymous. London: Verso Consalvo, M & Ess, C
p.(None): (2013) The Handbook of Internet Studies. Wiley-Blackwell
p.(None): Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural
p.(None): Studies, 23(4), pp.525-535.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 11 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Day Thompson, S. (2016). Preserving Social Media. Digital Preservation Coalition
p.(None): http://www.dpconline.org/newsroom/latest-news/1616-capturing-the-conversation-new-report-highlights-
p.(None): the-need-to-preserve-social-media
p.(None): Economic and Social Research Council (2016) http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-
...

Searching for indicator employees:

(return to top)
p.(None): the following position statement on this issue in February 2016, available at www.ukrio.org/publications/ .
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Research involving security-sensitive research material raises a number of issues for researchers and research
p.(None): organisations. These include legal matters, questions about IT specifications related to the storage of such material,
p.(None): and issues of research ethics and research integrity.
p.(None):
p.(None): UKRIO has no remit or ability to give any advice or opinion on legal matters. Similarly, questions concerning IT fall
p.(None): clearly outside of UKRIO’s remit8.
p.(None):
p.(None): An important ethics issue for any research is the need to ensure the safety of researchers and others involved in the
p.(None): research, including any legal risks. Another issue is to address risks accruing to institutions under whose auspices
p.(None): the research is carried out. We note that guidance from Universities UK9 on the oversight of security-sensitive
p.(None): research material was published a number of years ago, while legislation on security issues is an on-going and changing
p.(None): process.
p.(None):
p.(None): We would therefore strongly recommend that the ethical review process of any research involving security-sensitive
p.(None): research material should check for evidence of independent legal assurance that the research carried out is within the
p.(None): provisions of the current law and that the research would not put researchers, other employees, students, participants
p.(None): or the institution itself in legal jeopardy.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 8 Those needing advice on IT specifications may wish to consult their organisation’s IT department; universities may
p.(None): wish to seek external advice from JISC (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/).
p.(None): 9 Universities UK (2012). Oversight of security-sensitive research material in UK universities.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 10 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): Annex 2: acknowledgements and further reading
p.(None): This document was written by Isla-Kate Morris, UKRIO Adviser and University of Southampton (formerly University of
p.(None): Sussex), with James Parry of UKRIO.
p.(None):
p.(None): We would like to thank Professor Mark Everist, Dr Ron Iphofen, Dr John Oates and Dr Andrew Rawnsley for their
p.(None): invaluable help and feedback. We would also like to thank the UKRIO subscribers who commented on a draft version of
p.(None): the document.
p.(None):
p.(None): UKRIO wishes to acknowledge the use of the following documents in the development of this publication:
p.(None):
p.(None): Arthur, C (2014) ‘Facebook emotion study breached ethical guidelines, researchers say’ [online] 30 June. Available at
p.(None): http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical- guidelines-researchers-say.
p.(None): Accessed 22 June 2015
...

Searching for indicator opinion:

(return to top)
p.(None): not known to the researcher.
p.(None): The consideration of data management is growing, particularly for European funded research and therefore the guidance
p.(None): available to researchers is growing. Some institutions, particularly in the UK, are expanding their capacity for
p.(None): research data management which is predominantly being led by libraries.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 9 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None): Annex 1: UKRIO position statement on research involving security- sensitive material (February 2016)
p.(None):
p.(None): Internet-mediated research, as with other forms of research, can involve security-sensitive material. UKRIO published
p.(None): the following position statement on this issue in February 2016, available at www.ukrio.org/publications/ .
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Research involving security-sensitive research material raises a number of issues for researchers and research
p.(None): organisations. These include legal matters, questions about IT specifications related to the storage of such material,
p.(None): and issues of research ethics and research integrity.
p.(None):
p.(None): UKRIO has no remit or ability to give any advice or opinion on legal matters. Similarly, questions concerning IT fall
p.(None): clearly outside of UKRIO’s remit8.
p.(None):
p.(None): An important ethics issue for any research is the need to ensure the safety of researchers and others involved in the
p.(None): research, including any legal risks. Another issue is to address risks accruing to institutions under whose auspices
p.(None): the research is carried out. We note that guidance from Universities UK9 on the oversight of security-sensitive
p.(None): research material was published a number of years ago, while legislation on security issues is an on-going and changing
p.(None): process.
p.(None):
p.(None): We would therefore strongly recommend that the ethical review process of any research involving security-sensitive
p.(None): research material should check for evidence of independent legal assurance that the research carried out is within the
p.(None): provisions of the current law and that the research would not put researchers, other employees, students, participants
p.(None): or the institution itself in legal jeopardy.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 8 Those needing advice on IT specifications may wish to consult their organisation’s IT department; universities may
p.(None): wish to seek external advice from JISC (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/).
p.(None): 9 Universities UK (2012). Oversight of security-sensitive research material in UK universities.
p.(None):
p.(None):
...

General/Other / Dependent

Searching for indicator dependent:

(return to top)
p.(None):
p.(None): 2 http://www.hra.nhs.uk/resources/research-legislation-and-governance/governance-arrangements-for-research-ethics-
p.(None): committees/
p.(None): 3 The Association of Research Ethics Committees ‘Framework of Policies and Procedures for University Research Ethics
p.(None): Committees’ 2013
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 4 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): and online research." McKee, Heidi A. & Porter, James E. (2009) The ethics of Internet research: a rhetorical,
p.(None): case-based process p.31
p.(None):
p.(None): It is important to consider proportionately when considering the ethics of a study and when undertaking ethical review
p.(None): of any project but this focus may be even more pertinent for online studies. This is reinforced by the concern
p.(None): expressed above by McKee and Porter (2009); to facilitate ethically sound research, while also allowing researchers
p.(None): professional discretion.
p.(None):
p.(None): Communities, individuals and data
p.(None): The complexities of researching online with ‘people’, be that themselves or their data or both, depends on participants
p.(None): being identified to the researcher, the researcher being identified to participants and if so (on both sides) the
p.(None): verification of that identity. Much of this is dependent on the scale of the research, whether the scope is at a micro
p.(None): or macro level, the sensitivity of the topic and whether identifiable data are collected or not.
p.(None):
p.(None): Communities
p.(None): The British Psychological Society’s guidance on internet-mediated research (2013) suggests that consideration must be
p.(None): given to working within communities online and asks the researcher to consider the principle of ‘do no harm’ with the
p.(None): potential of disruption of a community and the potential harm of disclosing as a researcher. BPS (2013) suggest seeking
p.(None): gatekeeper permission from a forum moderator if a researcher is navigating how to approach a group and negotiating the
p.(None): benefits or risks of disclosing as a researcher to a group. Particular consideration should be given to data or people
p.(None): where the interaction or data collection are undertaken in a password protected environment or environment that may be
p.(None): perceived by the user as private.
p.(None):
p.(None): Deception
p.(None): The British Psychological Society are a useful resource when considering using deception within a study. The use of
p.(None): deception is sometimes accompanied by a debriefing process following the research activity. The use of deception must
p.(None): be justifiable and balanced with the research objective and the anticipated risks or harms.
p.(None):
p.(None): Valid consent
p.(None): As with deception of identity it could also be said that the anonymity permitted by the internet may allow for
p.(None): deception and the challenge of ensuring that a participant has fully understood the study and therefore giving fully
...

General/Other / Impaired Autonomy

Searching for indicator autonomy:

(return to top)
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): researchers to recruit hard to reach groups where the anonymity or distance provided by the internet allows internet
p.(None): users and research participants to disclose or speak about something sensitive or challenging. With such groups it is
p.(None): important to consider the disruption that research could cause to supportive communities that develop online and to the
p.(None): intent individuals have when going online to seek support or community.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 1. The ethical principles applied within ethical review in the UK
p.(None): The British Psychological Society (2013, p2) suggests a return to the first ethical principles as the landscape of
p.(None): internet-mediated research is and will be rapidly changing. The development of the practice of research ethics
p.(None): committees (in particular at a University level) are informed by ethical principles developed internationally and the
p.(None): guidance from the Association of Research Ethics Committees, GAFREC principles2 (Governance Arrangements for Research
p.(None): Ethics Committees, 2011), UKRIO and professional membership bodies.
p.(None):
p.(None): The Association of Research Ethics Committees ‘Framework of Policies and Procedures for University Research Ethics
p.(None): Committees’ (2013) states that the basic principles of ethical research are3:
p.(None): • Autonomy: The participant must normally be as aware as possible of what the research is for and be free to take
p.(None): part in it without coercion or penalty for not taking part, and also free to withdraw at any time without giving a
p.(None): reason and without a threat of any adverse effect.
p.(None): • Beneficence: The research must be worthwhile in itself and have beneficial effects that outweigh any risks; it
p.(None): follows that the methodology must be sound so that best results will be yielded.
p.(None): • Non-maleficence: Any possible harm must be avoided or at least mitigated by robust precautions.
p.(None): • Confidentiality: Personal data must remain unknown to all but the research team (unless the participant agrees
p.(None): otherwise or in cases where there is an overriding public interest, or where participants wish their voices to be heard
p.(None): and identified).
p.(None): • Integrity: The researcher must be open about any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and conduct their
p.(None): research in a way that meets recognised standards of research integrity.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 2. Specific items to consider
p.(None): Offline, online or neither
p.(None): “Often organisations simply cannot keep up, providing internet researchers with too little guidance and inappropriate
p.(None): guidance that applies overboard generalisations or make false comparisons between offline
p.(None):
p.(None): 2 http://www.hra.nhs.uk/resources/research-legislation-and-governance/governance-arrangements-for-research-ethics-
p.(None): committees/
...

General/Other / whistleblower

Searching for indicator whistleblower:

(return to top)
p.(None): Association of Internet Researchers (2012) Ethical decision-making and internet research 2.0
p.(None): http://aoir.org/ethics/
p.(None): Barsky, E. and M. Purdon (2006) ‘Introducing Web 2.0: Social Networking and Social Bookmarking for Health Librarians’,
p.(None): Journal of the Canadian Health Library Association 27(3): pp65–7
p.(None): Bassett, E and O’Riordan. K. (2002) ‘Ethics of Internet Research: contesting the human subjects research model’ Ethics
p.(None): and Information Technology, 4 (3): pp232-47.
p.(None): Berry, D M (2004) Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation - an open source approach. Internet Research
p.(None): Vol.14(4), pp.323-332
p.(None): Boyd, D & Crawford, K (2012) Critical Questions for Big Data, Information, Communication & Society, 15:5, 662-679
p.(None): British Educational Research Association (2014) Ethical issues in online research
p.(None): https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-issues-in-online-research
p.(None): British Psychological Society (2013) Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research
p.(None): http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-and-guidelines/research-guidelines-policy-documents/research- guidelines-poli
p.(None): Brotsky, S.R. and Giles, D. (2007) Inside the “pro-ana” community: A covert online participant observation.
p.(None): Eating disorders Vol.15 Iss2 pp. 93-109.
p.(None): The Cabinet Office data science blog https://data.blog.gov.uk/category/data-science/
p.(None): Coleman, G (2014) Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: the many faces of Anonymous. London: Verso Consalvo, M & Ess, C
p.(None): (2013) The Handbook of Internet Studies. Wiley-Blackwell
p.(None): Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural
p.(None): Studies, 23(4), pp.525-535.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): 11 © UKRIO 2016
p.(None):
p.(None): UK Research Integrity Office Good practice in research: internet-mediated
p.(None): research v1.0
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Day Thompson, S. (2016). Preserving Social Media. Digital Preservation Coalition
p.(None): http://www.dpconline.org/newsroom/latest-news/1616-capturing-the-conversation-new-report-highlights-
p.(None): the-need-to-preserve-social-media
p.(None): Economic and Social Research Council (2016) http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-
p.(None): applicants/research-ethics/frequently-raised-topics/internet-mediated-research/
p.(None): Elgesem, Dag (2002) What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology 4, 3
p.(None): pp.195–203
p.(None): Ess, C. (2007) ‘Internet research ethics’ The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology pp487-502. Oxford University Press
p.(None): Ess, C. (2013) Digital media ethics. Polity
p.(None): Fielding, N & Lee, R. M (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods London SAGE
p.(None): Garton, L., C. Haythornthwaite and B. Wellman (1999) ‘Studying On-Line Social Networks’, in S.G. Jones (ed.) Doing
...

Orphaned Trigger Words

Appendix

Indicator List

Indicator	Vulnerability
access	Access to Social Goods
age	Age
autonomy	Impaired Autonomy
children	Child
crime	Illegal Activity
dependent	Dependent
education	education
educational	education
employees	employees
home	Property Ownership
military	Soldier
opinion	philosophical differences/differences of opinion
political	political affiliation
racial	Racial Minority
student	Student
threat	Threat of Stigma
violence	Threat of Violence
whistleblower	whistleblower

Indicator Peers (Indicators in Same Vulnerability)

Indicator	Peers
education	['educational']
educational	['education']

Trigger Words

capacity

coercion

consent

cultural

developing

ethics

harm

protect

protection

risk

sensitive

Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input

Vulnerability Type	Vulnerability	Indicator	# Matches
Political	Illegal Activity	crime	1
Political	political affiliation	political	3
Social	Access to Social Goods	access	4
Social	Age	age	8
Social	Child	children	2
Social	Property Ownership	home	2
Social	Racial Minority	racial	1
Social	Soldier	military	1
Social	Student	student	1
Social	Threat of Stigma	threat	1
Social	Threat of Violence	violence	1
Social	education	education	6
Social	education	educational	1
Social	employees	employees	1
Social	philosophical differences/differences of opinion	opinion	1
General/Other	Dependent	dependent	1
General/Other	Impaired Autonomy	autonomy	1
General/Other	whistleblower	whistleblower	1

Good Practice in Research: Internet-Mediated Research (2016)

Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input

Political / Illegal Activity

Political / political affiliation

Social / Access to Social Goods

Social / Age

Social / Child

Social / Property Ownership

Social / Racial Minority

Social / Soldier

Social / Student

Social / Threat of Stigma

Social / Threat of Violence

Social / education

Social / employees

Social / philosophical differences/differences of opinion

General/Other / Dependent

General/Other / Impaired Autonomy

General/Other / whistleblower

Orphaned Trigger Words

Appendix

Indicator List

Indicator Peers (Indicators in Same Vulnerability)

Trigger Words

Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input