This is my presentation at the conference "General Online Research" (March 5, 2013, in Mannheim). Please note: I had to leave out very important issues (such as obtaining consent and publication of data) due to time constraints. You will find some information on that in the "Appendix", i.e. the last four slides :)

1. Beyond methodology
Ethical implications of “doing research online”
Nele Heise, M. A.
“General Online Research”
March 5, 2013, Mannheim

2. The charms of doing research online
• economical reasons (time, costs) and “convenience”
• web as a „science laboratory“: Comprehensive logging and storage,
easily accessible archive of communication and interaction processes
• Richness of data (“big data”), ease of field access, better conditions for
specific methods e.g. observational analysis
Dilemma: technical feasibility vs. ethical acceptability
 Online Research Ethics
Market research: complex regulatory framework (e.g. AGOF)
Academic research: few guidelines (e.g. AoIR), especially in the
German context (e.g. Döring 1999, Dzeyk 2001, Schmidt 2009)
Heise | Online Research Ethics 2

3. Project on Internet Research Ethics (2010-2011)
• Document analysis of a virtual working group (AG Ethik im Social Web) &
qualitative interviews with 17 German (academic) internet researchers
[different methodological and thematic foci, phases of academic career]
• objective: exploration of potential ethical conflicts in online research
• Key findings:
application of ethical standards (e.g. anonymization or obtaining “informed
consent”) not problematic with conventional methods
problems and insecurities occur in regard with innovative online methods (e.g.
avatar-based research), new research objects (e.g. social networks) and/or due
to new practices of usage (e.g. publication vs. conversation in SNS)
:: Background ::
Heise | Online Research Ethics 3

4. One conclusion of the Project
“Many conflicts arise due to breaches of norms
and/or standards of online communication”
Heise | Online Research Ethics 4

5. Preconditions of online based research
5
• (spatial and temporal) de-contextualization
• Disembodiment, virtualization (textuality)
• informational constraints: degree of social presence, anonymity
• Blurring boundaries of publicity and privacy (data, “spaces”)
Heise | Online Research Ethics
Online based research is a form of
computer-mediated communication

6. Researcher role
• ethical standards of research
• technical / methodological requirements of research
• research experience / practices
User role • principles of communication ethics
• rules of media use (e.g. netiquettes)
• individual media literacy/competence
“Hybridity” of online research contexts
• technical & social frames of media practices
• characteristics of online communication
• terms of use, rights of the providers
• individual ethical argumentation
• fidelity & responsibility
hybrid role
6Heise | Online Research Ethics

7. Wolff (2007) Beck (2010)
“Personalität” Comprehensibility
Reciprocity Rightness
Authenticity Thruth
Truthfulness Truthfulness
7Heise | Online Research Ethics
Ethical principles of online communication

8. Wolff (2007) Beck (2010)
“Personalität” Comprehensibility
Reciprocity Rightness
Authenticity Thruth
Truthfulness Truthfulness
8Heise | Online Research Ethics
Ethical principles of online communication
See also: Heise (2013, forthcoming)

9. Truth & Truthfulness
• congruency of saying and reality & obligation to speak the truth;
complete and true information about identity and communication
aims/goals, otherwise: failure of communication
informational constraints for verification (data, user accounts etc.)
and identification/authentication
“visibility” of researchers and disclosure of research (e.g. “fake
profiles”)
9
Ethical Principles & Research Practice
Heise | Online Research Ethics

10. “As a participant I have greater autonomy (…) so I can leave situations
easier that are unpleasant for me. On the other hand, I am cut off of
information. (…) as a participant I have to trust a bit more, because the
setting might be harder to grasp. If I go to an experiment at a university and
the door sign of the person that invited me says ‘Mr./Ms. X’, also I can see in
which department this takes place (…) so, there I have more hints pointing
to the seriousness of the research. On the internet, this is harder to
understand. Also, it is easier to pretend things or to give false facts. (…).
There is a bigger informational insecurity for participants. At the same
time, they have a greater scope for actions and can drop off more easily
than in a f2f-situation.”
[media psychologist, online games research]
10
Ethical Principles & Research Practice
Heise | Online Research Ethics

11. Rightness or “Richtigkeit”
• Appropriateness of communication with regard to the relationship
between two interaction partners
Access to online “spaces”
Recruitment of participants
Ambivalence of methods (data mining, log file analysis, profiling)
11
Ethical Principles & Research Practice
Heise | Online Research Ethics
Authenticity
• to act as you yourself, undisguised and be open-minded, but:
selective authenticity to safeguard privacy
shifting boundaries of privacy & publicity (data, practices) as well as
private and professional life, and “equivalency of context”

12. “At the very moment at which I'm registered, I accept the rules of the
community, and agree that I will follow them. (…) Not I as a researcher
define: what I am doing, what I'm citing or publishing is unproblematic, no
problem. The complete opposite is true: the group sets the boundaries. (…)
I as a researcher have a kind of ‘Holschuld’, a duty to obtain their consent.”
[research assistant, online observational analysis]
“as social scientists, working with media users, we all know that media
usage is not always rational. I cannot assume that (…) it is a conscious
decision if someone is not using his/her privacy settings. (…) You must give
the users some credit, because you cannot take for granted that you can
use it, only because it is not secured.“
[research assistant, online games research]
12
Ethical Principles & Research Practice
Heise | Online Research Ethics

13. “it is not just (…) a technology, an infrastructure, which is simply there.
Instead it is appropriated and it has a specific meaning to us. If you are
going to MySpace you do different things than on Facebook (…) these are
very different spaces or Lebenswelten, with different functions and
meanings. Once you acknowledge that (…) we as researchers have to take a
certain position: not to sniff around and observe everything because it is
easily accessible, but instead to be aware of the fact that these spaces are
made by people for themselves. (…) Although it is easily technically
accessible in principle.”
[doctoral student, qualitative analysis of self-representation in SNS]
13
Ethical Principles & Research Practice
Heise | Online Research Ethics

14. Some final remarks
• “disenchantment“ of online based research
• Ethics of online communication as a chance to carry out ethical
research in a very dynamic field
• importance of online communication ethics due to the ‘hybrid
role’ as researcher/user, e.g. selective authenticity
• Reconsideration of the value of trust and responsibilities
• Prospective reflection of communicative settings and strategies
(as an important part of ethical consideration)
• integration in teaching and methodological discourses
14Heise | Online Research Ethics

15. Thanks for your attention!
Nele Heise, M. A.
Hans Bredow Institute, Hamburg
n.heise@hans-bredow-institut.de
@neleheise
http://de.slideshare.net/garneleh

16. References
Beck, K. (2010). Ethik der Online-Kommunikation. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (pp. 130-155). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Burgess, J. & Bruns, A. (2012). Twitter Archives and the Challenges of ‘Big Social Data’ for Media and Communication Research. M/C Journal, 15 (5). Retrieved
from: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/561 (November 22, 2012).
Döring, N. (1999). Sozialpsychologie des Internet: die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Dzeyk, W. (2001). Ethische Dimensionen der Online-Forschung. Kölner Psychologische Studien 6(1), 1-30. Retrieved from: http://kups.ub.uni-
koeln.de/volltexte/2008/2424/pdf/ethdimon.pdf (January 21, 2011).
Eynon, R., Schroeder, R. & Fry, J. (2009). New Techniques in Online Research. Challenges for Research Ethics. 21st Century Society 4(2), 187-199.
Fraas, C., Meier, S. & Pentzold, C. (2012). Online-Kommunikation. Grundlagen, Praxisfelder und Methoden. Wien: Oldenbourg Verlag.
Hamilton, R. J. & Bowers, B. J. (2006). Internet Recruitment and E-Mail Interviews in Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Health Research 16(6), 821-835.
Heise, N. (2013, forthcoming). “Doing it for real”. Authentizität als kommunikationsethische Voraussetzung onlinebasierter Forschung. In M. Emmer & I. Stapf
(Eds.), Authentizität in der computervermittelten Kommunikation. Weinheim: Juventa.
Heise, N. & Schmidt, J.-H. (2013, forthcoming): Ethik der Onlineforschung. In M. Welker et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Onlineforschung. Köln: Herbert von Halem.
Markham, A. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 5 (3), 334-353.
Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision Making and Internet Research: Version 2.0. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Final
Draft, endorsed by the AoIR Executive Committee. Retrieved from: http://ijire.net/aoirethics/aoirethicsprintablecopy.pdf (November 16, 2012).
McKee, H. & Porter, J. E. (2009). The Ethics of Internet Research. A Rhetorical, Case-Based Process. New York: Peter Lang.
Nentwich, M. & König, R. (2012). Cyberscience 2.0. Research in the Age of Digital Social Networks. Frankfurt/M.: Campus Verlag.
Schmidt, J.-H. (2009). Braucht das Web 2.0 eine eigene Forschungsethik? Zeitschrift für Kommunikationsökologie und Medienethik 11(2), 38-42.
Strohm Kitchener, K. & Kitchener, R. F. (2009): Social Research Ethics. Historical and Philosophical Issues. In D. MMertens,. & Ginsberg, P. E. (Eds.), The Handbook
of Social Research Ethics (pp. 5-22). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Trevisan, F. & Reilly, P. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas in Researching Social Media Campaigns on Sensitive Personal Issues: Lessons from the Study of British Disability
Dissent Networks. Paper presented at the 4th European Communication Conference, October 24-26, 2012, Istanbul. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2164729 (February 27, 2013).
Welker, M. & Matzat, U. (2009). Online-Forschung: Gegenstände, Entwicklung, Institutionalisierung und Ausdifferenzierung eines neuen Forschungszweiges. In N.
Jackob, H. Schoen & T. Zerback (Eds.), Sozialforschung im Internet: Methodologie und Praxis der Online-Befragung (pp. 33-47). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Wolff, O. J. (2007). Kommunikationsethik des Internets: eine anthropologisch-theologische Grundlegung. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Ziegaus, S. (2009). Die Abhängigkeit der Sozialwissenschaften von ihren Medien. Grundlagen einer kommunikativen Sozialforschung. Bielefeld: transcript.
Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research on Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12 (4), 313-326.

17. Context sensitivity and online research
“There cannot be a blanket, whole cloth approach to Internet Research ethics.
Contextual details matter, including: What, exactly, is the object of analysis of the
study – texts, aggregated bits of information, or the persons themselves? What are
the use expectations of the online site and of the online participants? What is the
sensitivity of the information collected? What are the ages, geo-cultural-political
affiliations, and/or technological expertise of the online participants? In what form
are the researchers collecting data, and in what forms are they re-distributing it? Is
the researcher using real names or real user/avatar names, quoting passages,
taking screenshots, etc.? And where will this material appear and to whom will it
be accessible?”
McKee & Porter (2009: 7f.)
[see also: Heise/Schmidt (forthcoming), Markham/Buchanan 2012]
Consequences for:
Data collection (privacy/publicity, sensivity and accessibilty of data; involved actors)
Publication of Data (anonymization vs. copyright; consent; alternative strategies)
17Heise | Online Research Ethics