Transcript Digital Ethnography and Ethics in the context of Web 2.0

Digital Ethnography and Ethics in the
context of Web 2.0
Yvette Morey & Andrew Bengry-Howell
University of Bath
Mediated Lives & Web 2.0
• Everyday life increasingly technologically mediated
(Murthy, 2008)
• Internet – key site of mediation & living of daily life (Puri,
2007)
• Web 2.0: online, social platforms enable creation,
collaboration & sharing:
–
–
–
–
–
blogging & micro-blogging (Twitter)
social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace)
media sharing sites (YouTube, Flickr)
Social bookmarking sites (Delicious)
mash-ups (Google maps)
Web 2.0 icons
“Computing is not about computing anymore, it is about living”
(Negroponte in Flew, 2002: 12)
Digital Ethnography
• Changing social fabric (Beer & Burrows, 2007)
• Disciplines respond with methods & questions
• Virtual ethnographies – develop understanding through
participation & observation (Hines, 2000)
• Desire to understand by engaging (Dominguez et al,
2007)
• Digital ethnography engages with digital content used to
represent and construct everyday lives online
• Ethical issues of online research complicated by Web
2.0 environment - not addressed
“We shape our tools, and thereafter they shape us”
(Marshall McLuhan)
Existing Ethical Guidelines
BPS (2007): Report of Working Party on Conducting
Research on the Internet
1. Verifying identity
2. Public/private space:
–
–
3.
4.
5.
consent unless reasonably expect to be observed
Address of forums & online pseudonyms not
published
Informed consent
Deception – lurking as a member to collect data
Data protection: consent for processing of
personal information
Festival & Free Party Research
Negotiating Managed Consumption: Young people, branding & social
identification processes (ESRC)
• Music festivals & free parties – marketed,
promoted as spaces of freedom &
authenticity
• Festivals: mainstream, middle-class,
major sponsorship
• Free parties, illegal, small networks,
promoted by select members
• How do young adults negotiate branding
& marketing in these spaces?
• How are spaces different i.t.o managed &
unmanaged consumption?
• Range of methods including analysis of
web forums
• Significant online presence across
platforms: forums, media-sharing, social
networking sites etc.
Ethical issues in Web 2.0
Unable to use data within guidelines because:
• Private becomes public (on/offline)
– Personal & private voluntarily exposed
– Private and public nuanced, different across different
platforms
• User-generated content:
–
–
–
–
users/participants become authors/producers
Public domain or informed consent?
Attribution & credit for content (IP)
Open content ethos – authorship unstable
(Snee, 2008)
Spectrum of Decisions & Responsibility
BPS/Inst. Guidelines
Researcher
Not appt for Web 2.0: Ind. Responsibility
Subjective
Multi-user & author,
content fluid, unstable No practical imp.
Institution
•
•
•
•
•
Researcher
Pub Domain (Journ)
No credit for content
Expose vulnerable
group/practice
User-authors, web
admin
At what point on the spectrum are decisions based?
Who is onus on to take ethical steps?
Who should onus be on to give permission to use data?
Who owns the data?
Researchers unsure about/unable to use online content
Future Ethics
• How does Web 2.0 community engage with
simultaneous need for privacy, attribution for content &
move towards open access?
• Trust & transparency rather than confidentiality (Snee,
2008)
• Creative Commons, Open Commons
• CC licence: permissions for how content can be used
(copyright)
– Attribution
– Share-alike
– Noncommercial
Creative Commons icons
– No derivative works
Ethical Commons
• Ethical Commons based on/adapted from principles of CC?
• Recognition by HEFCE/Institutions as set of standards that
researchers can use to negotiate ethical conduct with participants
and use of content online
• Well-known online brand that has stamp of approval
• Return to informed consent but
– Mirrors online/Web 2.0 environment
– In sync with ethos of collaboration and sharing
– Flexible
• Creative/Ethical Commons – in sync with move towards Open
access in published content
• In combination with offline ethics tools (consent, debriefing etc)
• More transparent about practices and able to publicise work