Online Observations and Virtual
Ethnography –
Ethical Issues of a Qualitative
Experiment regarding Facebook
Valentin Belentschikow & Nicholas Müller
Institute for Media Resarch, Chair of Media Communication/Psychology
Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
[email protected]
[email protected]
Presence
The extent to
which users
know if others
are available
Sharing
The extent to
which users
exchange,
distribute and
receive content
social enhancement (the rich get richer)
social compensation (the poor get richer)
Zywica & Danowski (2008)
Relationships
IDENTITY
The extent to
which users
reveal themselves
Conversations
The extent to
which users
communicate
with each other
Groups
The extent to
which users
relate to each
other
people accept
friendship requests
from people they
don‘t even know
Lemieux (2012)
Reputation
The extent to
which users
know the social
standing of
others and
content
The extent to
which users are
ordered or form
communities
Social Media Functionality (Kietzmann et al. (2012)
perceived attractiveness and gender
Wang et al. (2008)
number of (mutual) friends correlates with online-popularity and attractiveness
Tong et al. (2008)
number of friends and mutual friends
are significant factors for the willingness to
accept friendship requests
(curiosity and mutual interests are mediators)
Khoo (2010)
„Facebook“-studies tend to rely on scales and self-report survey data
Anderson et al. (2012)
44/53
group post
„Hey, I‘m the new one!“
closed online group I
n=60 (students)
coordination of courses
FAQ
talk and gossip
confederate
personal message
„Hey, I‘m the new one!“
closed online group II
n=60 (students)
40/49
Ethical barrier:
We are not allowed to take a step into the closed online groups spying on our students
mixed-method-approach
qualitative experiment; online observation; focus groups; survey
Case „Anna“
social relationships
social capital & self disclosure
security issues
Facebook behaviour
mutual groups (?)
personal identity
personal cues
social identity
mutual group
group salience:
group post
personal message
acceptance
group behaviour:
help assistance
„Anna was an exceptional act...“
„Normally I do not accept requests
from people I don‘t know...“
AOIR
key guiding principles
The greater the vulnerability of the community / author / participant, the greater the
obligation of the researcher to protect the community / author / participant.
Because ‘harm’ is defined contextually, ethical principles are more likely to be
understood inductively rather than applied universally. That is, rather than one-sizefits-all pronouncements, ethical decision-making is best approached through the
application of practical judgment attentive to the specific context.
Because all digital information at some point involves individual persons,
consideration of principles related to research on human subjects may be necessary
even if it is not immediately apparent how and where persons are involved in the
research data.
When making ethical decisions, researchers must balance the rights of subjects (as
authors, as research participants, as people) with the social benefits of research and
researchers’ rights to conduct research. In different contexts the rights of subjects
may outweigh the benefits of research.
AOIR
internet specific ethical questions
• How is the context (venue/participants/data) being
accessed?
– How are participants / authors situated in the context?
– How are participants/authors approached by the
researcher?
• What is the primary object of study?
– What are the ethical expectations commonly associated
with these types of data?
– What questions might arise as a result of the particular
context from which this data was collected?
AOIR
internet specific ethical questions
• How are data being managed, stored, and
represented?
– What method is being used to secure and manage
potentially sensitive data?
– What steps should be taken to ensure adequate anonymity
of data or to unlink this data from individuals?
• What are the potential harms or risks associated with
this study?
– What is the potential harm or risk for individuals, for
online communities, for researchers, for research ?
– What possible privacy-related harms may occur?
AOIR
internet specific ethical questions
• What are potential benefits associated with this study?
– Who benefits from the study - do the potential
participants?
– Is the research aiming at a good or desirable goal?
• How are we recognizing the autonomy of others and
acknowledging that they are of equal worth to
ourselves and should be treated so?
– Will informed consent be required from participants?
– If informed consent is warranted, how will the researcher
ensure that participants are truly informed?
Conclusion
1. Ethical issues regarding infiltration of closed
groups?
2. Confederate as an ethical-detachment?
3. Informed consent before publishing?
References
AOIR (2012): Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working
Committee (Version 2.0). Available at http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
Anderson, Beth/Woodnut, Tom/Fagan, Patrick/Chamorro-Premuzic (2012): Facebook Psychology: Popular Questions
Answered by Research. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1 (1), pp.23-37.
Kietzmann, Jan H./Silvestre, Bruno S./McCarthy, Ian P./Pitt, Leyland F. (2012): Unpacking the social media phenomenon:
towards a research agenda. Journal of public affairs, 12 (2), pp. 109-119
Khoo, Guan-Soon (2010): To friend or not to friend? How facebook.com can make friend request decisions more
efficient. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec Singapore
International Convention & Exhibition Centre, Suntec City, Singapore
Lemieux, R. (2012). FICTIONAL PRIVACY AMONG FACEBOOK USERS. Psychological Reports: Relationships &
Communication, 111 (1), pp. 289-292.
Tong, Stephanie Tom/van der Heide, Brandon/Langwell, Lindsey (2008): Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship
Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, pp. 531-549.
Wang, Shaojung/Moon, Shinil/Kwon, Kyounghee/Evans, Carolyn/Stefanone, Michael (2008): Better without Face?
Gender difference in Visual Cue Use When Initiating Friendship on Facebook. Paper submitted to Communication and
Technology Division of Annual Conference of the International Communication Association.
Zywica, Jolene/Danowski, James (2008): The Faces of Facebookers: Investigating Social Enhancement and Social
Compensation Hypothesis; Predicting FacebookTM and Offline Popularity from Sociability and Self- Esteem, and
Mapping the Meanings of Popularity with Semantic Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, pp.
1-34.