Select a result to preview

VitakShiltonAshktorab2016BeyondBelmont

Vitak et al., "Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical Challenges, Practices, and Beliefs in the Online Data Research Community"

Bibliographic info

Jessica Vitak, Katie Shilton, and Zahra Ashktorab. 2016. Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical Challenges, Practices, and Beliefs in the Online Data Research Community. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820078

Commentary

The article explores the ethical considerations, practices, and beliefs of the online data research community. The researchers investigate ethical challenges that arise in this field beyond the traditional Belmont Principles, which are widely used ethical guidelines in research.
The Belmont Principles are:

A need for updated ethical guidelines that align with the rapidly evolving landscape of online data research is highlighted, offering insights into how researchers navigate ethical dilemmas and provides valuable recommendations for addressing these challenges responsibly.

Social computing is a field that requires online data to perform research. This is beneficial for many goals such as social networking, crisis management, or sentiment analysis. However, using online data raises some concerns, for example privacy concerns. Online data research often involves the collection and analysis of personal information, raising significant privacy concerns. Striking a balance between research needs and individual privacy rights is a complex and critical ethical issue.

A second concern is informed consent. Obtaining informed consent from research participants in the online realm can be challenging. Users may not fully understand the potential implications of data collection, making it essential to explore innovative and effective ways to inform and engage participants.

Excerpts & Key Quotes

Existing ethical guidelines

"Research in the U.S.1 has been governed for more than 30 years by principles established in the Belmont Report, written in response to revelations regarding unjust studies in medicine and psychology [25]. The report emphasized three guiding principles: respect for research participants, beneficence, and justice in participant selection. Subsequent legislation based on the report, known as the Common Rule, codified these principles in establishing institutional review boards (IRBs), which oversee research ethics on U.S. university campuses receiving federal funding [25]. Respect, beneficence, and justice remain relevant guiding principles for online data research. But collecting and analyzing online data often challenges the traditional interpretations of these principles by the Common Rule and IRBs."

Comment:

The Belmont Report and the Common Rule have offered valuable ethical guidelines for research with human participants. However, they may not fully address the complexities of online data research. These traditional guidelines were mainly designed for medical and psychological studies and might not entirely apply to the unique challenges of gathering data from online networked spaces. Online research presents new and different situations that may not fit well within the established framework.

The challenges of obtaining informed consent in the context of massive publicly available information streams and the potential for re-identification of individuals raise ethical concerns that were not originally addressed by these principles. Additionally, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality in online data collection is not as straightforward as it is in traditional research settings, where identifying individual participants is more controllable.

As the world of online research continues to evolve, there is a need to revisit and adapt the existing ethical guidelines to encompass the specific nuances and risks associated with digital data collection. This requires collaboration among researchers, institutions, and regulatory bodies to develop updated and comprehensive ethical standards that align with the realities of conducting research in the digital age. Ignoring or bypassing these challenges can lead to potential harm to individuals whose data is being studied and can undermine the integrity of the research being conducted.

Judgement of harm

"Researchers who focused their personal codes of ethics on preventing harm to participants varied from trying to minimize harm ('Make sure there is minimal risk to the participants') to trying to prevent harm entirely ('never hurt participants from any aspects'). Most researchers writing about harm seemed to trust their own judgment about what might prove harmful. A few, however, qualified their ability to foresee harm. For example, a sociologist working in industry clarified: 'Do no intentional harm.'"

Comment:

The notion of "harm" in research can encompass various dimensions. This quote highlights that some researchers trust their own judgment when determining potential harm, but it does not address the need for objective and standardized measures to evaluate and mitigate harm in research. Relying solely on researchers' subjective judgments may lead to inconsistencies and biases in decision-making, potentially overlooking or underestimating certain risks.

Furthermore, the distinction between "minimal risk" and "no harm" can be subjective and open to interpretation. What one researcher considers minimal risk may be perceived differently by another, leading to varying degrees of precautionary measures being taken. This lack of consensus on the threshold of acceptable risk raises ethical concerns, especially in sensitive research areas.

Risks and limitations

Determining the total population of international researchers performing research using online data is a difficult task, making sampling especially challenging. While all attempts were made to reach as many researchers working with online data as possible, we may have inadvertently excluded population subsets due to the diversity of researchers, topics, and venues.

Comment:

The authors acknowledge that determining the total population of international researchers working with online data is difficult. With mentioning this, they mention one of the biggest problems in my opinion. The authors do not elaborate on the specific strategies used to overcome this challenge. It is essential for researchers to provide a comprehensive explanation of their sampling methods and how they attempted to reach a diverse pool of participants. Without this information, readers may question the representativeness of the study's sample and the validity of its conclusions. To ensure a fair and unbiased system, researchers need to know which populations they are leaving out of their study. This helps them understand any potential biases and take steps to make the research more balanced and equitable.