Ethical Research Issues

Pole and Hillyard (2016, p.104) highlighted that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to fieldwork and ethics. They stated “Taking the right decision will depend as much on the values of the fieldworker as it will on the particular circumstances of the research”. The general principle of ethical research is to do no harm (Kotler and Armstrong, 2013) and leave the reputation of social science intact (Pole and Hillyard, 2016, p.63).

Atkinson (2015) noted that the ethical standards for ethnography, like other methods, have been derived from biomedical research. Atkinson (p.174) stated, “Clearly, one would not want human subjects to participate in experiments or trials unwillingly”. Atkinson and Hammersley (2007, p.209) reinforced this point that ethnography is ultimately about the

production of new knowledge and that this should conform to ethical standards. Ultimately, the researcher is interacting with people in their natural settings and therefore this may have consequences for the people being studied.

A key area for ethical consideration is that of informed consent. In this PhD study, consent was sought and the data anonymised as per the ethical approval process at the University of Salford. In the history of ethnography, there have also been examples of ethnography where data collection is more covert. Covert participant observation is a fairly major deviation from this ethical baseline. There are a number of examples of this technique of covert interviews in academic studies and also journalism (Leigh, 2006). There is some disagreement on the issue of not revealing the identity of the researcher and the purpose of the study to some or all of the people being observed. On one hand, authors such as Bulmer (1982), suggested that this kind of research does harm and contravenes human rights. From another perspective, other authors argued that there is a time and a place for this in order to gain insight, which could not otherwise be gathered. For example, authors such as Calvey (2008, p.914), argued the case for covert research in the face of much opposition. He concluded his study by saying, “for me, the discourse on ethics trades on an exaggerated idea of the role and importance of the academic”. Atkinson and Hammersley (2007) also noted that there could be certain circumstances that may not be accessible for open research. There is a conflict in the

literature in covert research, where some authors refute these grey areas. For example, a basic guiding principle for capturing qualitative interviews was outlined by Qu and Dumay (2011, p.253) “interviewees do not need to be informed about the full study, but they need to be informed about the interview process, the roles of the researchers (e.g. covert versus overt roles) and how the interview data will be used”.

The literature conflicts on this issue. Atkinson and Hammersley (2007) noted that the picture is complex, even when consent is obtained, they warned that once a researcher has built a rapport with informants, it may be possible that they effectively forget that they are being observed. They also found that generally, ethnographers do not always tell all participants everything about their research. There may be many reasons for this, firstly, the researcher may not know exactly what is involved themselves as they are immersed in the situation and formulating their research problem. Atkinson and Hammersley also stated that participants are often not overly interested in the research and too much information could also affect the

study, who were usually interested in the blog post findings, but not full interview transcripts or a lengthy explanation of the research up front. This meant that the researcher blog had added importance for being able to share findings in an accessible way.

Atkinson (2015, p.178) also highlighted the dilemma of ethics forms, which require yes or no answers and because of this, the forms become “impossible to answer in good faith”. So whilst it is important to do no harm, ethics and ethnography is not a simple matter. Similarly, it is not easy when dealing with the online world, which comes with its own questions, standards and dilemmas. The position of this PhD study was to adhere to the principle of “do no harm” and use the authors experience in dealing with people online and offline to treat people fairly and justly. Respecting people’s wishes and limited time was also an important factor to do no harm and maintain a good rapport with the people who were part of this study.

In the online world, authors such as Kozinets and Boellstorff have written at length on ethical standards and guidelines for netnography and online research respectively. Netnography: Redefined (2015) takes stock of ethical issues for online ethnography and was refined over decades of research. Kozinets alluded to the complexity of this area by opening the ethics chapter with words from Annette Markham; “At least for the foreseeable future, researchers must operate flexibly to adapt to continual shifts in perceptions, unstable terms of service, radically distinctive national and cultural expectations for privacy and still steady growth of Internet use” (Markham, 2012).

This effectively sets the stall for this thesis and highlighted that researchers need to work flexibly around shifting requirements, terms and conditions and privacy settings of an ever growing and evolving online world. Kozinets highlighted that netnographers have a lot of ethical choices to make and therefore it is crucial to understand and keep up to date with this area. For this study, it was important to adopt and adhere to the ethical standards outlined in the table below. These key ethical standards are outlined by Boellstorff et al. (2012), which are also endorsed by netnography and Kozinets (2015).

Ethical area Description

Principle of care Taking good care of informants including allowing them to gain some kind of reward for participating in the research

Informed consent Keeping informants informed about the nature and purpose of study. Being open about your research Legal risk Be aware of the legal implications of research and terms

and conditions of online field sites

Anonymity Do not reveal identities of informants or information that could lead to their identification

Deception Avoid deliberately misleading people, spying or pretending you are someone else

Intimacy Avoid intimate relationships with informants and always use integrity

Doing Good Strive for a positive impact

Taking leave Exiting the field gracefully by preparing your informants appropriately

Accurate portrayal Making sure you give an accurate and sympathetic portrayal of informants in your research

Figure 33 - Virtual world research ethical areas and guidelines based on Boellstorff et al. (2012)

Generally speaking, many of the same rules apply for real world or online ethnography, but there are some additional considerations for netnography. Kozinets (2015, p.146) noted for example that online, people have moved away from using pseudonyms. “In the Facebook and Twitter age, most people are using their ‘real name’ and with API links and cookies

everywhere, it is a relatively simple matter to link the use of one name with another”. People are posting information to websites, which are publically accessible and often indexed by search engines. It is easier then to find where a quote was given online and who the original author was. API here refers to Application Protocol Interface, which is a way of third party software using social media logins and other data. Cookies are small text files which track and capture user data as they browse the Internet with their web browser.

The fact that the Internet works in this way creates something of an ethical dilemma because participants could potentially be identified, even if pseudonyms are used. Kozinets does not offer an easy answer to this ethical dilemma, but suggested that researchers should seek permission for any direct quotes used. The AIOR (Association of Internet Researchers) code adhered to in this study indicated that all quotes should be anonymised and if direct quotes are used, permission should be sought to use these, even from publically accessible websites

These are the standards adhered to in this research study. Care was taken in this study to treat people with respect, to do no harm and to comply with the AIOR guidelines.

In terms of ethics and written consent, the following processes were used for the three types of interview used in this study:

• Face to Face Interview – paper printed info sheet and ethical approval form (See appendix 1 and 2)

• Telephone interview – emailed info sheet and ethical approval form

• Twitter or Facebook interview – send a link to info sheet on research website and at the conclusion of the interview, ask in writing, "Would it be okay to quote you anonymously in my PhD thesis and research?” also “I would be happy to share my findings if interesting to you".

When asked, participants were never interested to read back the transcription of their interview, but were sometimes interested to read blog posts of the findings. They were also very happy to be quoted in the study in all cases. This maps to the point made earlier in the chapter by Creswell regarding the value of participants checking findings as opposed to transcripts or raw data. In this PhD study, participants were much happier to read the findings presented as a blog post and nobody was interested to read a transcript of their interview. It is also notable that some participants would prefer to be named as opposed to quoted

anonymously. This is an interesting finding as the ethical approval process advocates anonymity, but informants in this study were questioning why it has to be anonymous.

Noting Kozinets comments and the standards of AIOR, using online methods to capture data does present some ethical questions. It should be approached in the spirit of doing no harm, whilst enabling agility and keeping the time of the interviewee to a minimum. This is also an important consideration when busy people are giving up their time for interview. It is worth noting also that the data captured was from adults over 18 and from non-vulnerable groups and the material was not controversial or inflammatory.