FABRICATION AS ETHICAL PRACTICE

Abstract

This article focuses on innovative methods for protecting privacy in research of Internet-mediated social contexts. Traditional methods for protecting privacy by hiding or anonymizing data no longer suffice in situations where social researchers need to design studies, manage data, and build research reports in increasingly public, archivable, searchable, and traceable spaces. In such research environments, there are few means of adequately disguising details about the venue and the persons being studied. One practical method of data representation in contexts in which privacy protection is unstable is fabrication, involving creative, bricolage-style transfiguration of original data into composite accounts or representational interactions. This article traces some of the historical trends that have restricted such creative ethical solutions; emphasizes a researcher's obligation to protect research participants' privacy in mediated research contexts; and offers an introductory framework for reconsidering how to make case-based decisions to better protect the interests of participants in situations where vulnerability or potential harm is not easily determined.

Keywords:

• privacy
• sociology
• social media
• research methodology
• Internet
• ethics

Notes

This is widely discussed in ethics and Internet research literature. A particularly keen analysis appears in Sveningsson (2004), and is modified/expanded somewhat in McKee and Porter (2009). The ethical parameters for collecting information in online public spaces are ambiguous and contested. Hudson and Bruckman (2002) found that while it might be widely considered ethically acceptable to capture and analyze interactions and conversations in a public square without consent, this model did not match the expectations of their participants in real-time chat rooms, who felt strongly that ‘one may not ethically record an otherwise ephemeral medium without consent from participants’ (p. 118). Bassett and O'Riordan (1999) note that this sort of mismatch can occur in many ways: In the same online space or in the same online group, some users may believe their words are important public documents and they should receive credit as authors while others might believe their contributions are private, deserving anonymity. Likewise, the service provider, operator of an online forum, or terms of service may state that the content is public, yet individuals perceive the space to be private. As Bruckman notes, privacy is a concept that must be attended by considerations of expectations (in Ess and the AOIR Working Committee 2002). Nissenbaum (2010) adds that contextual integrity is required when we no longer can assume a consensus about what privacy means as a lived concept.

The authors of this study followed ethical research protocols as recommended by the Swedish Research Council, voluntarily submitting their research design for ethical review. Strong ethical components built into the design of the study included: balancing the public nature of the blogs with the concept of perceived privacy; assessing the need for informed consent on a case-by-case basis; obtaining consent in appropriate ways when deemed necessary; assessing risks associated with researcher presence; and so forth. Their decision to fabricate composite accounts was grounded in an ethical assessment of potential harm.

This number is based on a single Google search for this definition within .edu domains, which yielded 397 results as of the date of this writing.

My point is not about this specific case and I am not claiming that this scenario should have been transformed into a composite account. Any decision about whether to use direct quotes or an invented account would require consideration of multiple factors.