Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research”

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

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.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{7e44787c753443288eefa99b82b683c9,
title = "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.",
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.",
keywords = "social media, ethics, research ethics committee, privacy, consent",
author = "Hibbin, {Rebecca Alison} and Samuel Samuel and Derrick, {Gemma Elizabeth}",
note = "The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13 (2), 2018, {\circledC} SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jre on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1556264617751510",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "149--159",
journal = "Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics",
issn = "1556-2646",
publisher = "SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research”

T2 - Research Ethics Committee Members differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research.

AU - Hibbin, Rebecca Alison

AU - Samuel, Samuel

AU - Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth

N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13 (2), 2018, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jre on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - social media

KW - ethics

KW - research ethics committee

KW - privacy

KW - consent

U2 - 10.1177/1556264617751510

DO - 10.1177/1556264617751510

M3 - Journal article

VL - 13

SP - 149

EP - 159

JO - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

JF - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

SN - 1556-2646

IS - 2

ER -