Netnography and Research Ethics: A Presentation from the Association for Consumer Research 2015 Doctoral Symposium

1. Ethical
Concerns
in
Netnography
and
by
extension
other
types
of
online
data
collec7on
and
cultural
research
Robert
Kozinets
York
University
Toronto,
Canada
Some
thoughts
for
the
ACR
Doctoral
Symposium,
2015,
Bal7more
MD

3. An
Already
Poisoned
Well
• LeBesco
(2004)
reported
that,
in
a
single
month,
eight
researchers
tried
to
gain
access
to
a
par7cular
online
community
site
and
all
but
one
were
rejected
by
the
group.
• Hudson
and
Bruckman
(2004)
relate
that
people
in
chat-­‐rooms
reacted
with
hos7lity
when
they
were
aware
of
being
studied
by
researchers
• When
766
people
online
were
given
the
opportunity
to
become
part
of
the
research,
how
many
volunteered?
• ‘Many
list
owners
and
newsgroup
members
deeply
resent
the
presence
of
researchers
and
journalists
in
their
groups’
(Johns,
Chen,
and
Hall
2003,
p.
159)

4. Complica7ng
ma_ers….
• “At
least
for
the
foreseeable
near
future,
researchers
must
operate
flexibly
to
adapt
to
con7nual
shics
in
percep7ons,
unstable
terms
of
service,
radically
dis7nc7ve
na7onal
and
cultural
expecta7ons
for
privacy,
and
s7ll
steady
growth
of
Internet
use.”
• “To
complicate
ma_ers
further,
as
a
lived
concept,
privacy
is
inextricable
from
its
sister
concepts:
harm
and
vulnerability.
To
understand
how
poten7al
research
par7cipants
conceptualize
one
requires
considera7on
of
all
three,
separately
and
together,
in
context’
– Anne_e
Markham
2012,
p.
337).

5. • Ethical
concerns
of
privacy,
A
Balancing
Act
confiden7ality,
appropria7on,
and
consent
(Kozinets
2002a,
2006a)
• Add
to
this
‘fundamental
human
rights
of
human
dignity,
autonomy,
protec7on,
safety,
maximiza7on
of
benefits
and
minimiza7ons
of
harms,
or,
in
the
most
recent
accepted
phrasing,
respect
for
persons,
jus7ce,
and
beneficence’
(Associa7on
of
Internet
Researchers
Ethics
Working
Group
2012,
p.
4).

6. When
Is
Online
Research
Human
Subjects
Research?
• According
to
Title
45,
Part
46
(2009),
which
governs
IRBs
in
the
US,
human
subjects
research
is
research
in
which
there
is
an
interven7on
or
interac7on
with
another
person
for
the
purpose
of
gathering
informa7on,
or
in
which
informa7on
is
recorded
by
a
researcher
in
such
a
way
that
a
person
can
be
iden7fied
through
it
directly
or
indirectly
• Par7cipa7ve
netnography
fits
• However,
if
you
argue
the
Internet
is
more
a
text
than
a
social
space,
it
does
not
fit
(Basse_
and
O’Riordan
2002)
Observa7onal
netnography
doesn’t
fit?
Or
does
it?

7. Risk
According
to
US
Federal
Code
Title
45
Regula7ons
define
minimal
risk
as
meaning
that
‘the
probability
and
magnitude
of
harm
or
discomfort
an7cipated
in
the
research
are
not
greater
in
and
of
themselves
than
those
ordinarily
encountered
in
daily
life
or
during
the
performance
of
rou7ne
physical
or
psychological
examina7ons
or
tests’
(Protec7on
of
Human
Subjects,
2009).

8. • This
defini7on
is
obviously
tailored
to
a
world
of
physical
medical
experimenta7on,
not
ethnographic
or
other
online
data
explora7on
• It
does
not
par7cularly
help
us
to
assess
the
impact
of
publica7on
and
exposure.
• However,
might
we
compare
social
media
exposure
to
being
highlighted
and
featured
in
tradi7onal
media?
– Does
this
protect
netnography
(and
other
data
collec7on)
through
Freedom
of
Speech/
The
Press,
and
Fair
Use
types
of
laws
– Does
this
open
netnography
to
global
libel
and
slander
laws?
• Title
45
makes
it
clear
we
are
to
consequen7ally
weight
probable
risks
against
likely
benefits
– Ethics
are
not
about
avoiding
risks

9. The
Digital
Double
• Is
the
text
or
data
truly
separate
from
the
person?
• ‘An
essen7al
element
of
informa7onal
self-­‐determina7on
is
the
control
the
individual
has
over
the
informa7on
that
is
available
about
her
in
the
Internet
environment,
also
known
as
her
digital
double’
(Buitelaar
2014,
p.
266)
• Models
of
individuals
built
out
of
data
• Used
as
proxies
for
individuals
• An
‘extension’
of
the
offline
iden7ty
and
personality
• Digital
doubles
are
iden77es

10. P(seudonym)-­‐
Cracking
• Decloaking
anonymized/
pseudonymized
online
research
has
been
a
popular
pas7me
for
almost
two
decades
– Julian
Dibbell’s
Rape
in
Cyberspace
(Village
Voice
1993)
• Within
days
of
its
public
release,
a
large
and
anonymized
research
dataset
of
a
par7cular
Facebook
cohort
was
‘cracked’
and
iden7fied,
without
ever
looking
at
the
data
itself
(Zimmer
2010)
• Computer
science
students
and
other
technomages
enjoy
decoding
and
decryp7ng
• Scholars
in
computer
science
even
published
papers
on
the
robust
de-­‐anonymiza7on
of
large
social
network
datasets
(Narayanan
and
Shma7kov
2009).

11. Conclusion:
Recognizing
Con7ngencies
and
Complexity
and
Requiring
Adapta7on
• The
Internet
is
not
a
place
or
a
text
• Not
either
public
or
private
• Does
not
contain
simply
data
but
digital
doubles
of
our
iden77es
and
selves
• It
is
not
one
but
many
types
of
social
interac7on
• It
harbours
many
dynamic
expecta7ons
and
norms
regarding
privacy
and
its
viola7on
• This
is
an
area
needing
much
more
empirical
study

12. Fabrica7on
• All
scien7fic
knowledge
portrayal
is
constructed
• We
have
become
inured
to
processing
par7cular
conven7onal
forms
of
research
representa7on
– Thus
they
look
correct
and
thus
legi7mate
• However,
they
are
all
equally
fabrica7ons
• Ci7ng
Jane
Goodall,
Markham
reminds
us
that
ethnographers
are
interpre7ve
authori7es,
but
that
all
of
our
representa7ons
are
par7al
and
problema7c
• Markham,
Anne,e
N.
(2012),
“Fabrica9on
as
Ethical
Prac9ce,”
Informa(on,
Communica(on,
and
Society,
15:3,
334-­‐353.

13. Fabrica7on
• Suggests
that
opening
and
experimen7ng
with
our
online
ethnographic
representa7ons
is
a
prac7cal
way
to
protect
privacy
• Crea7ve
and
bricolage-­‐style
altera7on
of
“data”
• Various
kinds
of
composite
accounts
(personas)
and/or
representa7onal
interac7ons
• Fic7onal
narra7ves
• Layered
accounts
• Some
techniques
associated
with
remix
culture
• Also
experimenta7ons,
collabora7ons

14. Five
general
principles
and
procedures
1. Being
There:
not
merely
accurate
iden7fica7on,
but
ac7ve
personal
branding
2. Being
Honest:
full
disclosure
and
informa7on
through
social
media
and/or
research
web-­‐page
(e.g.,
profile
hat?)
3. Being
Considerate:
asking
appropriate
permissions,
consent
forms
for
interviews/interac7onal
data
collec7ons,
cloaking
data/iden77es
as
required
4. Giving
Credit:
ci7ng
where
appropriate,
credi7ng
where
appropriate
5. Being
Innova7ve:
where
appropriate,
considering
remix,
experimenta7on
Netnographic
Research
Ethics
Redefined

15. Helpful
Guidelines
and
Other
Resources
• White
paper/reports
– American
Associa7on
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
(Frankel
and
Siang
1999)
– Associa7on
of
Internet
Researchers
Ethics
Working
Group
2002,
2012)
– American
Psychological
Associa7on
(see
Kraut
et
al.
2004)
• Two
journals
largely
dedicated
to
these
issues:
– Ethics
and
Informa7on
Technology,
– Interna7onal
Journal
of
Internet
Research
Ethics
(online)
• Edited
and
co-­‐authored
volumes
– Boellstorff
et
al.
2012;
Buchanan
2004;
Ess
2009;
Johns
et
al.
2003;
Krotoski
2010;
McKee
and
Porter
2009;
Thorseth
2003).
• However,
as
the
authors
of
the
AoIR
Ethics
Working
Commi_ee
Report
(2012)
state,
“no
official
guidance
or
‘answers’
regarding
internet
research
ethics
have
been
adopted
at
any
na7onal
or
interna7onal
level’