From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research": Research Ethics Committee Members differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research
From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research": Research Ethics Committee Members differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research
Social media (SM) research presents new challenges for research ethics committees (RECs) who must balance familiar ethical principles with new notions of public availability. This article qualitatively examines how U.K. REC members view this balance in terms of risk and consent. While it found significant variance overall, there were discernible experience-based trends. REC members with less experience of reviewing SM held inflexible notions of consent and risk that could be categorized as either relying on traditional notions of requiring direct consent, or viewing publicly available data as “fair game.” More experienced REC members took a more nuanced approach to data use and consent. We conclude that the more nuanced approach should be best practice during ethical review of SM research.
149-159
Hibbin, Rebecca
abb3f05f-a528-4689-be4b-044c30959846
Samuel, Gabrielle
66af6213-08de-4c0e-92c1-12083ec456e3
Derrick, Gemma
9403a4d9-e3f2-40d9-9483-7fcad8523468
19 January 2018
Hibbin, Rebecca
abb3f05f-a528-4689-be4b-044c30959846
Samuel, Gabrielle
66af6213-08de-4c0e-92c1-12083ec456e3
Derrick, Gemma
9403a4d9-e3f2-40d9-9483-7fcad8523468
Hibbin, Rebecca, Samuel, Gabrielle and Derrick, Gemma
(2018)
From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research": Research Ethics Committee Members differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13 (2), .
(doi:10.1177/1556264617751510).
Abstract
Social media (SM) research presents new challenges for research ethics committees (RECs) who must balance familiar ethical principles with new notions of public availability. This article qualitatively examines how U.K. REC members view this balance in terms of risk and consent. While it found significant variance overall, there were discernible experience-based trends. REC members with less experience of reviewing SM held inflexible notions of consent and risk that could be categorized as either relying on traditional notions of requiring direct consent, or viewing publicly available data as “fair game.” More experienced REC members took a more nuanced approach to data use and consent. We conclude that the more nuanced approach should be best practice during ethical review of SM research.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 November 2017
Published date: 19 January 2018
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 451219
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/451219
ISSN: 1556-2646
PURE UUID: 12373a7f-7eb6-4224-8f6d-aa2c0d4b3c89
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 14 Sep 2021 17:11
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 10:28
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Rebecca Hibbin
Author:
Gemma Derrick
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics