Being an Ethical Online Researcher

Welcome to the March issue of When the Field is Online.

This month research ethics are at the center of discussion. We’ll build on the January newsletter about finding a problem to study, and the February newsletter about choosing qualitative methods.

Let’s start with the premise that as researchers and writers we want to do the right thing. We want to act ethically. That said, ethics is a fraught topic. What does it mean? Throughout the month of March 2025 When the Field is Online will focus on ethical issues relevant to qualitative researchers who use communications technologies to engage with human participants. (Ethical issues for online research using secondary data, posts, or documents involve another set of considerations, topics for another time.) While much of what I’ll share is particular to scholarly or academic researchers, the overarching principles are relevant to those who collect insights and stories for journalism or market research.

And I have a lot to say about ethical research practice! To keep the newsletter at a reasonable length, this month you’ll receive follow-up blasts in addition to the overview offered here:

• Ethics and consent in online research with participants

• Ethics and visual or creative methods

• Ethics and cross-cultural or international research

• Ethics and selection of technology tools and platforms

Looking ahead, in April we’ll focus on journaling for practical research record-keeping and reflexive notes, and art journaling for self-care. In May we’ll delve into ways to prepare for and conduct online interviews; in June we’ll focus on focus groups. Then what? Use the comment area to suggest future topics! This newsletter will remain freely available, but I am posting additional resources, checklists, examples, and a Q & A helpline chat for paid subscribers. If you appreciate the effort I put into this work, I’d appreciate your support as a paid subscriber.

Online communication and ethical research

I’m sitting here at my desk in Boulder, Colorado, writing a newsletter readers from across the world can access. In doing so I am making a person-to-person connection with you that our ancestors could not have imagined. This instant communication is something we’ve woven into our lifestyles and work. We use the written word in text messages, email, posts, or blogs. We exchange images including artwork, photos, and videos. We log on to see each other on video calls or video conferences.

We can use these forms of online communications in research, connecting with collaborative partners and with participants. Like many things, the fact that it is possible doesn’t mean that it is simple. There are a number of considerations for online researchers who must decide what form(s) of communication fit the purpose of the study and are available to participants, and which tools and platforms allow for privacy and protection of the data. With access to anyone, anywhere, we still need to be self-aware of our own positions and biases, and respectful of others’ cultures, styles, and circumstances.

When the telegraph and telephone opened immediate communication across the oceans and continents, educator and philosopher John Dewey observed a profound change in the nature of connection and the concept of distance:

Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided with the operation of factors… to eliminate distance between peoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another. …Travel, economic and commercial tendencies have at present gone far to break down external barriers; to bring peoples and classes into closer and more perceptible connection with one another. It remains for the most part to secure the intellectual and emotional significance of this physical annihilation of space (Dewey, 1916 p. 85).

We still grapple with the "intellectual and emotional significance of this "physical annihilation of space" when we communicate online. We can use the tools and platforms, but can we use them to make the authentic, respectful connections needed to collect data?

As Dewey suggests, we need what some might call “soft” or “people” skills in order to connect across time and space. As human researchers studying human participants, we must develop rapport, so they feel at ease sharing deeply personal experiences and perceptions of the world. These skills are not ancillary; they form the foundation for our work as qualitative researchers. A first important step is to recognize and appreciate ways that who we are, and how we act as researchers, can either further or obstruct the progress of the study.

• Self-Awareness: Research is about inquiry—asking questions and analyzing answers. To build self-awareness throughout the process, you may need to flip the inquiry and question your own ways of thinking, and limitations. You need to be aware of your comfort zones and responses to uncomfortable situations. Johnnson et al state that “neglecting the moral competence of researchers paves the way for disaster” (Johnsson et al., 2014, p. 42).
  
  What is your moral competence? How do your own views about yourself, your role, and your position(s) as a researcher affect how you view the participant? How might any biases or preconceived notions influence the ways you process participants’ responses? How do your knowledge and opinions about the research problem (from firsthand experience or the literature) affect the ways you problemetize the research and interpret potential outcomes? Researchers build moral competence and exercise self-awareness by being both reflective and reflexive – which we’ll explore in the April newsletter.

• Transparency: Others associated with the research project need to feel that you are being open and truthful about your motivations and research practices. Honesty and openness are essential to any research project. Being transparent might also mean openness about power-differenctials between researcher and participant and the opportunities and limitations for power-sharing. Begin the study in a transparent way: engage participants or others experiencing the problem to help define the direction of the study.
  
  When working online, keep in mind that just as you can search for others, they can search for you! Will they find supporting background information about you, your institution, and the problems that you intend to study that boosts your credibility? Be transparent about your identity and background.

• People and Cultural Skills: It is rare for researchers to work alone. Relationships and information technology are increasingly intertwined. As Hargrove (2001, p. 114) predicted at the early beginnings of pervasive Internet use: ‘The so-called information revolution is, in reality, more a relationships revolution.’ For online researchers, people skills are even more important since most communication is computer-mediated and may lack the warmth provided when we can shake hands, hug, or simply have eye-contact. Communities, cultures, and norms might not be readily obvious from the ways individuals engage with posts or writings. (Subscribe to receive a follow-up post dedicated to international and cross-cultural research)

Having people skills means being able to build respectful relationships with those from diverse cultures, disciplines, and abilities. Miller framed it this way: “For me, the process of engaging with communities involves personal education, experiencing life and culture from a different perspective, and gaining insight via a different paradigm, as well as undertaking this formal thing we call research” (Miller, 2013, p. 829).

Self-awareness, transparency, and people skills are interrelated. If we are self-aware, it is easier to be honest with others. If we are honest and transparent, it is easier to come across to others as genuine and trustworthy. Very simply, if people do not trust us, they will not fully cooperate with the study. If readers do not trust us, they will not find the study credible.

These factors must be at the center of our efforts when we communicate electronically. Some might be additionally challenging because we may or may not have the opportunity for the kind of informal conversation that is possible when we are physically present. We do not have casual time over a cup of coffee that allows us to connect person-to-person. That might mean others who are already unfamiliar with the research process or suspicious of what they perceive as intrusive behaviors, will have little patience for protocols that confirm negative attitudes. It is even more important in such circumstances to do exactly what we say we are going to do, when and how we have agreed to proceed. Simple things like being on time and being prepared go a long way towards building confidence.

As researchers, we are champions of scientific integrity in a world of disinformation and opinion

If we do not act with integrity, we can jeopardize the field of scientific research writ large, because the public will not see empirical research to be of value. While good scholarly research rarely makes the front page, unethical or improper research makes headlines. Today’s wary public needs not only trustworthy findings, they need clear explanations of what we are doing, and why. They need to see the good ideas we discover put into practice to improve the lives of individuals and the health of the planet. They need us to answer two basic questions: how do I know you are telling the truth, and what difference can this truth make in my life? To respond, we need to start with some soul-searching and commit to being the best researcher we can be.

An ethical researcher communicates and acts with integrity. We are honest, trustworthy, credible, and respectful. These characteristics are essential in all the relationships associated with planning and carrying out a research project – including supervisors, partners, collaborators, gatekeepers, and of course participants. Importantly, we act ethically when we labor on our own, at our own computers, behind closed doors. Integrity-in-action means we will do more than simply avoid wrongdoing or questionable practices.

Ethics at the center

Last year I invited feedback from qualitative researchers and am in the process of updating the guidelines and models I’ve written about in books such as Doing Qualitative Research Online (2022). One change: rather than having ethics as one part of the design, ethics is now at the center. Here are some questions to consider:

As you can see, ethical questions are associated with every part of the study – at every stage of the research process. While a proposal or plan might be reviewed by an ethics review board or Institutional Review Board (IRB), this is only the beginning. Getting approval to move forward is just the beginning; it doesn't mean you no longer need to think about ethics. Keep asking questions and reflecting on your choices as you move through the steps involved with carrying out the study and reporting on the results.

Still, it is not always obvious what ethical research means, or what we need to do to ensure that our studies are designed and planned, conducted and disseminated, ethically. Central to research ethics is the intention to protect human participants who provide data for the study. Research ethics can be defined as

the responsibility of the researcher toward others, including society broadly, other scholars, and most importantly, those whose attitudes, behaviors, and experiences we are studying.

While codes, guidelines, and theories are essential to understand, qualitative researchers must develop and exhibit moral judgment about how to interpret guidelines in the context of the study. Let’s look at some of the foundations for research ethics with participants.

Know your ethical lens

You want to do what is right, but how do you determine the best path? You can look at the same question from different perspectives and find ways to justify very different approaches. Writings about ethical theory are typically a bit philosophical, and it can be hard to see the practical application in a research design. With the caveat that I’m offering a very simplified view, here are some thoughts about how positions espoused by major ethical schools of thought might influence your choices. If one appeals to you, dig more deeply to gain a more nuanced understanding of the theory and how it might underpin design decisions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent (free) place to learn more.

• Deontology. Deontological ethics build on the philosophies of Immanuel Kant (1785/2008). Deontologists believe the priority for ethical behavior is in adhering to principles and duties, based on the premise that some choices are morally wrong, no matter how good the consequences (Baggini & Fosi, 2007). Researchers using deontological ethics are concerned with following ethical rules, codes, or formally specified guidelines (Berry, 2004). Researchers who take deontological perspectives work to adapt, update, and clarify codes to make sure fellow researchers have appropriate guidelines. The Belmont Report and professional codes of ethics such as those from the Association of Internet Researchers have their origins in Kantian deontological theory (franzke et al., 2020; Markham, Buchanan, & Committee, 2012). Online researchers looking through a deontological lens might prioritize adherence to guidelines and ethics codes.

• Consequentialism or Utilitarianism. Consequentialist researchers prioritize outcomes, and believe moral rightness depends directly on the consequences. As such, the potential discoveries found as a consequence of the study would be seen as more important than strict adherence to established rules or guidelines. A literal interpretation of the consequentialist view that the ends, the findings, can justify the means, could be used to justify deception or harms to participants. However, since consequentialism seeks to maximize good, involvement of individuals in research without their understanding or permission, or against their will, would be considered clearly unethical (Loue, 2000). Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, characterized by the view that an act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Researchers who take a consequentialist or utilitarian perspective sometimes take a cost–benefit approach to weigh the value of research outcomes, such as increased knowledge, against the approach taken to achieve it (Edwards & Mauthner, 2012, p. 19). For Internet researchers, this could mean taking a flexible approach to applying established guidelines or principles, believing that the value of the study outweighs adherence to rules or guidelines.

• Virtue ethics. Rather than focusing on whether to follow rules or not, virtue ethics asks researchers to follow their internal compass, personal value system or moral code to determine what is the right decisions. Virtue ethics focuses on the ‘moral character of the researcher rather than principles, rules or consequences of an act or decision’ (Wiles, 2013, p. 15). A researcher grounded in virtue ethics focuses on the development of the character so they are ready to confront ethical dilemmas (Morris & Morris, 2016). Researchers who take a virtue ethics approach take a ‘contextual or situational ethical position, with an emphasis on the researcher’s moral values and ethical skills in reflexively negotiating ethical dilemmas’ (Edwards & Mauthner, 2012, p. 19). Virtue ethics means trust that the researchers themselves can best determine the most ethical approach given the specific characteristics of the study. The virtue ethics reliance on dialogue with those involved with the research to determine the most respectful approach, and emphasis on the researcher’s own thoughtful consideration about how to avoid risks, may be beneficial in the evolving field of online research where even the best guidelines may be limited in their applicability.

• Ethics of Care. Ethics of care privileges the participants. Researchers working from this theory prioritize caring for the well-being of participants over the application of rules and would put participants’ preferences above their own. From this stance, concerns for the participants would outweigh potential value of research outcomes. Regardless of the social benefits of the study, the ends would not justify the means if participants could experience discomfort or harm.

Even with these brief summaries you can begin to see that the way we look at a study, the theory that offers an ethical lens, can mean we take radically different approaches to the study. And clearly the same ethical lens is not appropriate for all studies. A researcher interviewing victims of violence might commit to ethics of care, while a researcher trying to find solutions to an urgent problem (such as we experienced with the pandemic) might give more attention to outcomes. Thinking about the nature of the study, the sensitivity of the problem, and kinds of participants involved will help us find the appropriate perspective.

Each of these positions has its drawbacks. Overly rigid adherence to rules and ethics codes may mean researchers lack flexibility to address rapidly-changing circumstances. But omission of requirements set by rules and codes may mean the study is not approved and cannot move forward or cannot be published. A virtue ethics approach puts the responsibility on the researcher to practice due diligence, learn about and reflect on the study circumstances and decide how to proceed. While this approach allows for flexibility, it has other drawbacks. Student and novice researchers may lack the experience needed to understand the implications of their choices. It can also allow for moral relativism, where each researcher has a very different interpretation of boundaries and priorities. On the other hand, taking ethics of care as the guiding principle may, by itself, not offer sufficient guidance for studies where ‘participants’ who created materials posted, archived or published are not immediately involved in the study or available for consultation. In other words, there is no single ethical theory that can guide us!

Historic codes, enduring principles

Codes developed for other times still hold kernals of truth. After the World War II atrocities called ‘experiments’ by the Nazis, the Nuremberg Code was articulated in 1947 to prevent such horrors from occurring in the pretence of research. The Declaration of Helsinki, established in 1964 and updated in 2024, discusses medical research. The Belmont Report, adopted in the United States in 1974 is similarly aimed at medical and biomedical research. Still, some concepts apply today:

• Risks should be minimized, and potential participants should be informed about any risks.

• Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research participants and the confidentiality of their personal information.

• The voluntary consent of the human participants is absolutely essential. Consent should be verified in writing; if the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed. If someone is incapable of giving informed consent, or underage, the researcher must seek informed consent from the legally authorized representative.

• Voluntary participation means they can refuse to answer or withdraw at any point without reprisal.

Additional points tie ethics with the larger purpose of the study:

• The study should aim to yield fruitful results for the good of society.

• The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the study.

How do research ethics for online social research vary from other types of research? The Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR) has developed well-regarded guidelines. Alas, they have not been updated since 2019. See:

• 2019: Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0 [PDF] This set of guidelines helps researchers who want to use Big Data and/or data collected from social media.

• 2012: Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee [PDF] The 2012 materials offer more guidance for researchers connecting directly with participants.

• 2012: This chart provides a useful starting point for internet researchers to consider ethics.

Even with all these codes and guidelines, we don't have signposts to follow in a world where choices for researchers keep evolving. On the one hand online research with participants is more consistent with in-person research: in both cases we need to inform participants about the study, verify their consent, and protect them from harm. Harms specific to online research, or online management of data collected in-person, include protecting data from leaks, hacking, scraping, or AI bots that could jeopardize confidentiality. Participants who candidly share stories with us are entrusting us to protect their data from events that could jeopardize their privacy and leave them vulnerable to harassment or bullying.

To be avoided! Learn from an example.

Qualitative researchers like to share excerpts and stories shared by participants. But when participants are people with an online presence, sometimes the characteristics shared can be enough for them to be identified. The use of photographs or media can unwittingly reveal clues to their identity even if their faces are not shown. (Stay tuned for a future newsletter about ethics and visual methods.)

A colleague, Dr. Anuja Cabraal, a qualitative methodologist, shared this experience:

I've long thought about being a participant in a qualitative study, however I never seemed to meet the requirements. A few years ago, I saw a post online asking for participants, and I fit within the parameters of the study, so I contacted the researcher, and we scheduled an interview over zoom. We did two interviews over the space of a few months, and I learned a lot being on the other end of the research experience (so much so that I wrote a blog post about it).

A few years later, the researcher emailed me saying they had obtained their PhD, and had been asked to turn their thesis into a book. I was very happy for them. Attached to the email, was a copy of the thesis. I was interested in the findings of the study, so skimmed through the thesis, which is when I saw information about me that I found deeply concerning.

In the appendix, the researcher had written a detailed paragraph on each participant. The first sentence in my paragraph had so much information that an online search would have rendered me easily identifiable. My work, combined with my family status, place of residence, and other personal information, meant that it could only be me. I wondered if the other participants had even noticed their personal, and potentially identifiable information had been shared in the document. How could an ethical breach like this been missed by supervisors and examiners?

I contacted the researcher via email, and did not receive any response. I ended up having to contact their supervisor, who thankfully took the matter seriously.

Upon finally having a phone call with the researcher to discuss my options, I was underwhelmed with their justification and response. They simply stated that they had taken notes about every participant during the interview process, and thought the examiners might find it interesting, so added it in the appendix. I did not get the feeling that they understood the potential consequences of their decision.

Thankfully the thesis had yet to be published online, so they were able to remove the appendix, and other identifying information about the participants from within the thesis.

Let’s learn from some of the problems she experienced:

• The researcher apparently did not think through the risks associated with sharing personal information about participants, and even when confronted with the issue, did not make time to study ethical practices that could have prevented or addressed the problem.

• The researcher put information about the participants into the document, but didn’t ask participants to review the information and consent to its inclusion. They were insensitive to the possibility that not all participants would agree to this level of sharing.

• While it is important to consider ethics at the design stage, sometimes we need to re-affirm our agreements at other stages of the study or when we want to write about or present results. Some participants are agreeable to sharing information in an academic document, given limited readership, versus a book or article that would be made public.

• The researcher was not responsive to the participant, which engendered discomfort. Even when the data collection is complete, researchers should be attentive to follow-up questions. Anuja is not only a researcher, she trains researchers. She had the courage to confront the researcher. Other participants might be less knowledgeable and lack the confidence to speak up – but avoid future participation because trust has been shaken.

Dr. Cabraal suggests: “To avoid similar mistakes, I highly recommend that researchers do an "ethics check" before thy publish any of their work. In fact, I have previously sent participants a copy of any work to be published, to give them an opportunity to express any concerns. I recognise that this is not always possible, but the point remains that ethical considerations are important throughout the research process, and not just a box to tick when it comes to methods (as some seem to think). “

To be a trustworthy researcher consider the following tips:

• Take integrity seriously. You are your first step in ethical research! For many research activities we are alone with our computers, with no one looking over our shoulders. Commit to honesty and transparency. (See related post and interview: What Kind of Researcher Are You?.)

• Build your online identity as a credible researcher. New online researchers should create or update profiles and clean up social media accounts. Consider making a blog or page about the study that you can link to and include in your email signature. List other publications or relevant accomplishments and link to your institution or other affiliations that will build confidence. If you have an .edu email address, use it. .

• Retool your data protection. When I supervised doctoral students, we would chuckle at guidance that described keeping data in a locked drawer for seven years. Of course, one challenge for online researchers is that we sometimes use platforms or programs we don't own. Make an effort to choose platforms and use their features in ways that allow you to download the data onto your own hard drive or flash drive. Password protect files if you share a computer. I’ll share a follow-up blast this month with more on this specific issue.

Books

Use the discount code UK25BOOKS for any of my books, or other Sage Publishing research methods texts in ebook format when purchased on the ebooks.com page.

References

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan Company. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html

franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C. M., & Committee, A. E. W. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. AOIR. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

Johnsson, L., Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Hansson, M. G. (2014). Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Research Ethics, 10(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016113504778

Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & Committee, A. E. W. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: 2012. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. AOIR. http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

Miller, K. (2013). Respectful listening and reflective communication from the heart and with the spirit. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 828-841. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013508596

Morris, M. C., & Morris, J. Z. (2016). The importance of virtue ethics in the IRB. Research Ethics, 12(4), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116656023

---

---

---

This license enables reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.

Thanks to Beth Spencer for this badge, indicating that no AI tools were used to create this post!