Research Ethics

Sensitive netnographic research of the sort recommended by Beckman and Langer necessarily breaks the normal ethical rules of ethnography in so far as it entails the researcher carrying out covert research without informing those who are under examination. Conducting such research in the context of what was in the recent past framed as a ‘war on terror’ calls for still greater

sensitivity on the part of the researcher. Boellstorff is at pains to differentiate his own online ethnographic research from the ‘culture at a distance’ approach used by anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict in order to attempt to gain some insight into the cultures of enemies during the Second World War.328 _{But while Benedict’s work may now have become a byword for}

compromised ethnographic practice, it was not always so, and in recent years there has been more interest in her legacy.329

Indeed, rather like the uncomfortable fact that the supposedly anti-authority, free for all medium of the Internet came into being largely under the aegis of the US military, it is perhaps worth drawing attention to the extent to which the approaches and methods of cultural studies were actually pre- empted by the ‘culture at a distance’ approach created by Benedict, Mead and others on behalf of

the US Office of Naval Research. In fact, William Beeman, in introducing the new edition of Mead and Métraux’s The Study of Culture at a Distance330 actually contrasts the systematic

methodological emphasis of the University of Columbia teams conducting this research to critiques of cultural studies as overly theoretical and paying inadequate attention to methodology.

In drawing this parallel, it seems hard to escape what has been called ‘the cultural turn in studying war’331 _{as recently epitomised, perhaps, in works such as Kilcullen’s The Accidental Guerrilla.}332 On the one hand, some anthropologists (perhaps particularly those involved in the US’s ‘Human Terrain System’) have argued that the application of anthropological knowledge has great potential to make war more humane, by avoiding needless spirals of suffering and recrimination resulting from misunderstandings between occupying forces and civilian populations.333 For others, however, the use of anthropological knowledge in the service of military ends can be seen as nothing more than and attempt ‘to fill the culture “slot”, providing a general sense of the enemy culture so that military operations can be more effectively carried out and foreign policy objectives realised’.334 Behind this, of course, lies a long historical debate about the colonial ends served by the research of such foundational figures in anthropology as E. Evans Pritchard, and the extent to which not only the ethical justifiability of such people’s work, but also its accuracy may have been compromised thereby.335

To some extent the issues raised in the rancorous anthropological debate on the legitimacy of engaging in ‘human terrain mapping’ are somewhat different from those that are raised by the prospect of attempting to study jihadism on the Internet. First, since the intention is not to study, a broad, supposed unit of ‘culture’ such as, say, ‘Pashtuns,’ or ‘Iraqis’,336 the idea that an innocent civilian population is being exploited would seem to be less convincing. This is not to say, of course, that anyone who engages with jihadi content on the Internet is a criminal who automatically forfeits his right to fair treatment as an object of research (even criminals retain such a right, after all). But it does mean that one is not exploiting a population who have, after all, hardly chosen to

which are productive of an antagonistic attitude towards outsiders. One cannot abuse trust, it might be suggested, where there is of necessity no possibility of trust to begin with. There is a more interesting point here, which relates to matters that will be discussed in later chapters. ‘Jihadis’ on the Internet are perfectly well aware that their forums are not secure, that they include, both as observers and as participants, people from intelligence agencies and the like. However, they

continue to frequent jihadi online communities because – so it seems – that they enjoy the feeling of sociality - the ‘jihadi ambience’ of such places. As such, the self declaration of a person to be anything other than a jihadi is far more disruptive, far more injurious to the experience of

participants in this situation than is covert viewing by non jihadi others which is taken for granted as an ill that must be endured.

Secondly, of course, in carrying out the research for this dissertation, there was neither the need nor the possibility of being ‘embedded’ in a military project. While the position is not taken in this dissertation that it is necessarily and automatically inappropriate for any social research into issues of this sort to be directed towards helping to produce more intelligent, effective, and just

government policy, there was no sense in which the researcher owed anything to any other power for his access to the data that was used.

For Beckman and Langer, the justifications for breaching the normal rules of ethnographic

procedure in online research are that, first, the data being gathered are in any case publicly available texts rather than deliberately private communications; second, the data could not be obtained in other ways; third, the study is being conducted in the interests of a public good, and is not being conducted in to the detriment of those being studied.

This study appeals to similar ethical justifications. At no point does it draw on information that cannot be obtained freely and openly, the only possible exception being data on the registration procedures of jihadi forums. It is worth noting that all members of such forums assume nicknames, and that registration on the forums entered is freely open to anyone without any need for deception

other than this. It was judged that given the nature of these forums, not registering under a nickname would have had ethical implications greater than using one would have done. Even so, the data in question - given, after all, that it pertained to forums on the Internet, clearly could not have been obtained other than from forums on the Internet. From a public interest point of view, the value of gaining some insight into the online culture of people who may pose a risk of conducting acts of political violence is clearly significant. But the study was not conducted with a view to advising on how best to eliminate a supposedly threatening jihadi presence on the Internet, and still less with a view to gaining information of use for law enforcement purposes against people on or off the Internet. No jihadis were harmed in the making of this dissertation.

A final question relating to the legitimacy of the research conducted for this dissertation relates to its legality. It is illegal in the UK, under section 2 of the 2006 Terrorism Act, to disseminate ‘terrorist publications’. According to the Act:

A publication is a terrorist publication, in relation to conduct falling within subsection (2), if matter contained in it is likely—

(a) to be understood, by some or all of the persons to whom it is or may become available as a consequence of that conduct, as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the

commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or

(b) to be useful in the commission or preparation of such acts and to be understood, by some or all of those persons, as contained in the publication, or made available to them, wholly or mainly for the purpose of being so useful to them.337

In the course of the research conducted for this dissertation, some material that might be judged to fall into this category was, inevitably, obtained. However, it is not sufficient to be guilty under this act merely to possess such content. Rather, one must also be judged to possess it for the purpose of disseminating it. Even then, it must further be judged that the one who does so:

a. intends an effect of his conduct to be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;

b. he intends an effect of his conduct to be the provision of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts; or

c. he is reckless as to whether his conduct has an effect mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).338

None of the material gathered for in the course of the research was made available to anyone else.