A review of ethical considerations in online research for the social sciences, with special consideration given to the TCPS2 guidelines.

1. Ethical considerations in online
research for the social sciences
With special consideration given to the
2nd edition of Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
(TCPS2)
By Cody Skinner
University of Guelph
March 15, 2013

2. Using the internet for research
There are many different contexts for online research:
- in the form of the interaction (text, audio or video)
- the environment under scrutiny (online community, e-commerce site)
In addition to different epistemological and logistical approaches, each require
nuanced ethical considerations (AoIR, 2012; Krotoski, 2010).
“Although the medium presents challenges to existing ethical approaches, the
Internet does not inherently transform the accepted protocols. Technology
connects people to people via a network, and therefore we must be sensitive to the
rights of the human subjects behind the connections” (Krotoski, 2010, p. 4).

3. Three categories of online research
Kitchin (2003) suggests there are three general types of research methods available
through the Internet:
(1) Passive analysis: Studies of online information patterns or discussions without the
researchers involving themselves;
(2) Active analysis: Researchers participate in online communications;
(3) Online semi-structured interviews, online focus groups, or Internet based surveys,
or use the Internet to recruit subjects for traditional research.
Research that falls under numbers 2 and 3 will always require REB approval. Within
the research ethics guidelines of the Tri-Council Policy Statement, passive analysis may
need REB approval if it is judged to make use of private information (TCPS2, 2010).
The distinction between public and private on the internet, however, can be unclear.

4. Public vs private on the Internet
Some researchers contend that much of the data found online is situated in the
public domain and, as such, is comparable to a television or newspaper article
(Kitchin, 2003).
Drawing on previously created and archived narratives/texts falls under
publicly available information, especially in cases where the use of which
would pose no harm beyond that already assumed by speakers-as-writers
(Kitchin, 2003).
However, according to TCPS2 “a matter that is publicly accessible may,
nevertheless, be considered private in a prospective participant’s culture. There may
be a reasonable expectation of privacy by some groups, or for some activities”
(TCPS2, 2010, p 147).

5. Public vs private on the Internet
Covert observation (lurking) avoids many of the barriers associated with age,
gender and race in relationships between the researcher and participants. However,
‘lurking’ may have serious ethical considerations regarding invasion of privacy
(Brownlow and O’Dell, 2002).
While people online operate in a public space, they may have perceptions or
expectations of privacy.
Users may know their communication online is publicly visible, but the specific
context in which it appears may imply restrictions on how that information can be
used by other parties (AoIR, 2012).

6. Indicators for perceptions of privacy
Eysenbach and Till (2001) suggest researchers consider the following when
deciding whether online sources of data are private or public:
• Sites requiring registration or a user’s permission to gain access to a discussion
group or social media posts are most likely regarded as private places.
• The number of (real or assumed) users of a community may indicate how public
the space is perceived to be.
• The perception of privacy depends on an individual group's norms and codes,
target audience, and aim, often laid down in the frequently asked questions or
information files of an internet community.

7. Relevant passages in TCPS2
“Exemption from REB review is based on the information being accessible in the
public domain, and that the individuals to whom the information refers have no
reasonable expectation of privacy” (TCPS2, 2010, p 24).
“Cyber-material … to which the public is given uncontrolled access on the
Internet for which there is no expectation of privacy is considered to be publicly
available information” (TCPS2, 2010, p 24).
“When accessing identifiable information in publicly accessible digital sites …
with restricted membership, the privacy expectation of contributors of these sites is
much higher. Researchers shall submit their proposal for REB review”
(TCPS2, 2010, p 24).
“When in doubt … researchers should consult their REBs” (TCPS2, 2010, p 24).

8. ‘Active analysis’ and other online
engagement for research
According to a report by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special
Working Committee (SSHWC, 2008), in cases where a researcher participates in
an online community, or in cases where the researcher uses the Internet to solicit
‘subjects,’ ethics review should be sought.
This includes:
1. engaged web-based research, even with minimal involvement where the
researchers participate in communications, and
2. online research (collecting information through interviews, discussion groups,
surveys or questionnaires)
Ethical assessment would be necessary as these situations raise problems involving
consent, anonymity, confidentiality and risk.

9. Challenges in obtaining consent online
The process of requesting consent can disrupt normal group activity
(Bruckman, 2002).
The speed of discussions and change in participants typical in online environments
make it difficult to obtain consent online from all participants (SSHWC, 2008).
It is difficult to ensure that subjects thoroughly read the consent form, understand
instructions and give information voluntarily (SSHWC, 2008).
While they may provide a useful starting point, obtaining permission from an
administrator is inadequate to obtain the consent of the community (Eysenbach
and Till, 2001).

10. Tips for obtaining consent online
SSHWC (2008) recommends the following when seeking consent online:
• Ask participants to indicate their agreement and understanding
at each major point in the consent form by using check boxes.
• Provide a hyperlink to frequently asked questions.
• Provide clear instructions for revoking consent, ensuring that data
are removed from the database.
• Test participants on the consent-related material with correct responses
to access the study.

11. Research with minors
As with most social science research, SSHWC (2008) suggests researchers are of
two positions when it comes to consent involving research with minors:
• For some, contact with and access to minors in the context of Internet research
should take place only through an intermediary, such as parents or the school.
• Others favour direct access to minors, with no parental consent, so that young
people can respond freely to research questions and not be prevented from
participating in the research
In either case, it is difficult to verify the age and identity of an online participant.
One might verify the participant’s information with a telephone call and cross-
checking information from the participant with information from other sources
(Kitchin, 2003).
According to TCPS2, “those who lack the capacity to consent on their own behalf
must neither be unfairly excluded from the potential benefits of research
participation, nor may their lack of capacity to consent be used to inappropriately
include them in research” (TCPS2, 2010, p 41).

12. Anonymity
Online pseudonyms should be treated in the same way one treats real names (Hill
et al, 2004). The reputation of a virtual identity needs to be valued as the most
important social currency in online environments (Krotoski, 2010).
Even ‘anonymised’ datasets can contain enough personal information for
individuals to be identifiable (AoIR, 2012).
Use of explicit quotes may make it possible to locate the original author of the text
through search engines (Kitchin, 2003).
Authors of online content may actually want to be credited. Failure to do so may
be considered a misuse of another person's intellectual property
(Eysenbach and Till, 2001).
“Where the researcher seeks data linkage of two or more anonymous sets of
information … and there is a reasonable prospect that this could generate
identifiable information, then REB review is required” (TCPS, 2010, pp 25).

13. Confidentiality
Identifying information, demographic or other sensitive information should be
collected, transmitted, and stored separately from experimental data
(Hill et al, 2004).
The confidentiality and privacy of data gathered through online surveys may
constitute another problem due to transmission of data (Hill et al, 2004).
Researchers should alert participants to potential privacy confidentiality breaches,
even though this may effect participation levels (Brownlow and O’Dell, 2002).
“Research data sent over the Internet may require encryption or use of special
denominalization software to prevent interception by unauthorized individuals, or
other risks to data security. In general, identifiable data obtained through research
that is kept on a computer and connected to the Internet should be encrypted”
(TCPS2, 2010, pp 61).

14. Risk
It is difficult to monitor for or help subjects deal with any distress raised by an
online interview or study (SSHWC, 2008). Debriefing and feedback are also more
complicated, as participants may exit the exercise before these happen. Hill et al
(2004) suggest the following steps be taken:
• Solicit personal, secure email at the beginning of the experiment whereby
feedback material can be sent if study participation is terminated prematurely.
• Opt-out buttons within surveys should be linked to a debriefing page.
• As debriefing cannot be guaranteed, deception should be used sparingly.
Information should also be provided on the identity, affiliation, and role of the
research team. Research design should include procedures for soliciting feedback
and handing complaints from participants, while summaries of study results should
be posted or sent via email to interested individuals (Hill et al, 2004).

15. A case for consideration
Henderson, Hutton and McNeilly (2002) examined two studies conducted using
passive observation of social networks. Simulating the two studies in terms of the
type of information collected, the researchers presented participants with social
network data from their own profiles (eg. status updates, photographs, friends,
locations). Participants were then asked if they would have consented to sharing
those pieces of data with researchers in a study.
Preliminary results indicated that passive crawling of social network sites might not
be acceptable to social network users, and therefore that mechanisms for obtaining
consent should be investigated for such studies.
For more information on this study and and the two cases examined, visit:
http://torrii
.responsible-innovation.org.uk/case-studies/ethics-online-social-network-research-0#
benabdesslem:esm
In your opinion, should the use of social network profile information always
require consent? Should content from Twitter be considered public? Should
comments on a bulletin board styled site like Reddit?

16. References
Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the
AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Chicago, IL: Markham, A., and Buchanan, E.
Brownlow, C., and O’Dell, L. (2002). Ethical Issues for Qualitative Research in Online Communities. Disability and Society,
17(6), pp. 685–694.
Bruckman, A. (2002). "Ethical Guidelines for Research Online." Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved March 14, 2013,
from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics/
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
(TCPS2).
Eysenbach, G., and Till, J.E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. British Medical Journal, vol.
323: 1103-1105
Henderson, T., Hutton, L., and McNeilly, S. (2012). FRRIICT case study report: Ethics in online social network research.
Retrieved March 14, 2013, from http://torrii.responsible-innovation.org.uk/case-studies/ethics-online-social-network-research-
0#benabdesslem:esm
Hill, M.L. King, C.B. Ecker-Denver, C. Gibson, E., Pankoff, B. and Rice, T. (2004). "The Ethics of Online Research: Issues,
Guidelines and Practical Solutions." Society for Prevention Research – Conference 2004, Poster #196.
http://home.oise.utoronto.ca/~scottlab/colin.pdf
Kitchin, H.A. (2003). The Tri-council Policy Statement and research in cyberspace: Research ethics, the Internet, and revising a living
document. Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 1(4): 397-418.
Krotoski, A. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue: Research ethics in online communities. International Journal of Internet
Research Ethics, vol. 3(1): 1-5.
Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics. (2008). Extending the Spectrum: The TCPS and Ethical Issues in
Internet-based Research. Ottawa, ON: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (SSHWC).
Background image source: http://pixabay.com/en/ball-http-www-crash-administrator-63527/