I am regularly confronted with questions regarding the ethically right way to interact with research participants within CMC environments. I guess that many colleagues and also research participants are faced with similar questions. I figured out for myself that an “ethics of care” is a good choice when doing research in CMC environments. This leaves enough flexibility since it is not fixed how “care” is achieved. However, it requires constant (re-) consideration of procedures since the researcher cannot resort to fixed rules. Care means above all to prevent harm from research participants, to respect and to engage. How this is best done differs from field to field.
In order to sort out my approach I found David M. Berry’s article “Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation: an open source approachClick in order to access the pdf-version of the article.” from the Association of Internet Researchers is another useful thing to do.
Here are a few points that figured out for my resarch:
PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE: Many ethical guidelines are based on the distinction between public and private. What is said in public is less protected than what is said in a private settings. So what about chat rooms and internet forums that are publicly accessible (i.e. readable) to everybody and where the site policies do not explicitly prohibit quoting? Many ethnographers working with CMC argue that most members inhabiting these kinds of forums and open chat rooms think that they act within a sphere of common trust in a self-defined virtual community. Their remarks are based on the perception that only those who are taking part in the discussion and are “visible” will be hearing their statements. Although they know that postings are archived and accessible also to those that are not registered they have the reasonable expectation that their statements are not leaked into a different context.
It seems that in these cases, and presumably also in the context of other CMC environments, the public-private distinction is not helpful. I refer here to the average activist taking part in activities in chat rooms and on forums. As for authorities like preachers, religious scholars and young shaikhs: Since they perform a public function and use the internet to communicate to a broader public I would not subsume them under this category. Therefore, religious activists in the seemingly “public” sphere of the internet need protection, or extra care.
GROUP VULNERABILITY: Apart from the blurred public-private distinction, the vulnerability of groups is another important point to consider. In the case of the Muslim activists who trust me and work with me I would say that they are for several reasons “vulnerable”: They stand in the center of a public debate that puts them at the crossing point of (non-)integration, terrorism, Islam, rejection of so-called Dutch or German values and radicalism. Furthermore, they share with me the intimate space of belief which is an inseparable part of their subjectivity. In such a setting, harm can easily come about. Following an ethics of care, I am not naming or quoting anybody without his or her prior consent. This refers to statements from interviews, of course, as well as to statements taken from chat rooms and forums. In general, I protect the participants by using pseudonyms. If the activists explicitly want so, I use their “real” name or a nickname they use in CMC environments (which would make them identifiable)
PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTS: Another point to consider is the protection of CMC environments. Chat rooms, for example can be easily “raided” by people who take over the “word” and thereby destroy the chat room at least temporarily. Forums are less prone to such invasions since moderators and administrators have a better grip on the communication. In general, asynchronous communication can be easily monitored. As with synchronous communication environments like chat rooms, the damage is done before the moderator or members can do something about it like banning a person from the room. Thus I also protect the identity of chat rooms. Protection can also become an issue for publicly accessible forums if activists could be harmed through the identification of the forums. That needs to be clarified during the research.
INFORMED CONSENT: Especially in US-American universities, it is a common practice to inform every field participant about the research and to get their consent, best in writing. I have thought a lot about this. I do not see how I can do this in forums and chat rooms because people come and go, I cannot ensure that everybody reads my post on a forum. In chat rooms it would be quite disturbing if I approach everybody entering with a long explanation about my research. The latter could even counteract the aims of the chat room (i.e. learning about Islam and living it). However, it is important that people know that I am doing research and not “spying” on them. Part of the solution is this blog here where activists can look around, contact me and comment on some stuff. To get written consent from every field participant is not possible. And, I would argue, in my case not necessary since I have taken strict measures to protect the activists. Rather, I contact administrators and moderators of chat rooms and forums in order to get their consent. Furthermore, I will whenever possible introduce myself.
There are many more intricacies to ethics within computer-mediated environments. It is not that the principles of ethics themselves change when doing research online. Prevent harm, ensuring respect and mutuality stay central. What needs to be adapted are the concrete practices that relate to it. There is not one guideline for all CMC environments. Ethics also imply thinking about the principles and how to preserve them in a given environment. It is a dynamic process.
