Expression in the Virtual Public: Social Justice Considerations in Harvesting Youth Online Discussions for Research Purposes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v15i3.2536Keywords:
Youth, social media, social justice, researchAbstract
Information posted by youth in online social media contexts is regularly accessed, downloaded, integrated, and analyzed by academic researchers. The practice raises significant social justice considerations for researchers including issues of representation and equitable distribution of risks and benefits. Use of this type of data for research purposes helps to ensure representation in research of the voices of (sometimes marginalized) youth who participate in these online contexts, at times discussing issues that are also under-represented. At the same time, youth whose data are harvested are subject (often without notice or consent) to the risks associated with this research, while receiving little if any direct benefit from the work. These risks include the potential loss of online social community as well as threats to participant rights and wellbeing. This paper explores the tension between the social justice benefit of representation and considerations that would suggest caution, the latter including inequitable distribution of research-related costs and benefits, and the traditional ethics concerns of participant autonomy and privacy in the context of youth participation in online discussions. In the final section, we propose guidelines and considerations for the conduct of online social media research to assist researchers to balance and respect representational and participant rights or wellbeing considerations, especially with youth.
References
Berriman, L., & Thomson, R. (2015). Spectacles of intimacy? Mapping the moral landscape of teenage social media. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(5), 583-597.
Bowe, B. J., & Blom, R. (2010). Facilitating dissent: The ethical implications of political organizing via social media. Politics, Culture & Socialization, 1(4), 323-336.
Bowe, B. J., & Blom, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and suppression of cyber-dissent in the Caucasus: Obstacles and opportunities for social media and the web. Journal of Media Sociology, 3(1-4), 5-19.
boyd, d., & Marwick, A. (2011). How teens understand privacy [Unpublished manuscript]. http://www.danah.org/papers/2011/SocialPrivacyPLSC-Draft.pdf
Brotsky, S. R., & Giles, D. (2007). Inside the “pro-ana” community: A covert online participant observation. Eating Disorders, 15(2), 93-109.
Burkell, J., & Regan, P. M. (2018). The right to be forgotten and youth: Philosophical and psychological contexts. In J. Packer (Ed.), The Canadian human rights yearbook (pp. 203-216). Human Rights Research and Education Center & University of Ottawa Press.
Calvey, D. (2008). The art and politics of covert research: Doing ‘situated ethics’ in the field. Sociology, 42(5), 905-918.
Collier, D. R. (2019). Re-imagining research partnerships: Thinking through “co-research” and ethical practice with children and youth. Studies in Social Justice 13(1), 40-58.
Costa, L., Voronka, J., Landry, D., Reid, J., McFarlane, B., Reville, D., & Church, K. (2012). Recovering our stories: A small act of resistance. Studies in Social Justice 6(1), 85-101.
Crethar, H. C., Rivera, E. T., & Nash, S. (2008). In search of common threads: Linking multicultural, feminist, and social justice counseling paradigms. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 269-278.
De Ridder, S., & Van Bauwel, S. (2015). The discursive construction of gay teenagers in times of mediatization: Youths’ reflections on intimate storytelling, queer shame and realness in popular social media places. Journal of Youth Studies 18(6), 777-793.
Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 14-31). Sage.
Ess, C., & Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Committee. (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Association of Internet Researchers. http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
Evans, M., Donelle, L., & Hume-Loveland, L. (2012). Social support and online postpartum depression discussion groups: A content analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 87(3), 405-410.
Evans, T. (2018, June 4). Helicopter science. Lateral Magazine, 27. http://www.lateralmag.com/articles/issue-27-helicopter-science
Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research: A social justice perspective. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 69-83.
Franzke, A. S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C. M. & Association of Internet Researchers. (2019). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0: Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
Guishard, M. A., Halkovic, A., Galletta, A., & Li, P. (2018). Toward epistemological ethics: Centering communities and social justice in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 19(3), 1-24.
Health Canada (2019). Requirements for informed consent documents. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/science-advice-decision-making/research-ethics-board/requirements-informed-consent-documents.html
Hoffman, A. L., & Jonas, A. (2017). Recasting justice for internet and online industry research ethics. In M. Zimmer & K. Kinder-Kurlanda (Eds.), Internet research ethics for the social age: New challenges, cases, and contexts (pp. 3-18). Peter Lang.
Høybye, M. T., Johansen, C., & Tjørnhøj‐Thomsen, T. (2005). Online interaction. Effects of storytelling in an internet breast cancer support group. Psycho‐Oncology, 14(3), 211-220.
Hung, A. C. Y. (2020). Political socialization on Xbox Live: A sociocultural linguistic approach to adolescent identity. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(5), 596-612.
Jowett, A. (2015). A case for using online discussion forums in critical psychological research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3), 287-297.
Luka, M. E., Millette, M., & Wallace, J. (2017). A feminist perspective on ethical digital methods. In M. Zimmer & K. Kinder-Kurlanda (Eds.), Internet research ethics for the social age: New challenges, cases, and contexts (pp. 21-36). Peter Lang.
Lyons, H. Z., Bike, D. H., Ojeda, L., Johnson, A., Rosales, R., & Flores L. Y. (2013). Qualitative research as social justice practice with culturally diverse populations. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology 5(2), 10-25.
Markham, A. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 334-353.
Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Research Committee (Version 2.0). http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
Middaugh, E., Clark, L. S., & Ballard, P. J. (2017). Digital media, participatory politics, and positive youth development. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement 2), S127-S131.
Minansy, B., & Fiantis, D. (2018, Aug. 29). ‘Helicopter research’: Who benefits from international studies in Indonesia. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/helicopter-research-who-benefits-from-international-studies-in-indonesia-102165
Morrow, M., & Weisser, J. (2012). Towards a social justice framework of mental health recovery. Studies in Social Justice 6(1), 27-43.
Mulveen, R., & Hepworth, J. (2006). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of participation in a pro-anorexia internet site and its relationship with disordered eating. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(2), 283-296.
Pieper, I., & Thomson, C. J. H. (2013). Justice in human research ethics: A conceptual and practical guide. Monash Bioethics Review, 31(1), 99-116.
Pullman, D. (2002). Conflicting interests, social justice and proxy consent to research. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(5), 523-545.
Regan, P. M., & Steeves, V. (2010). Kids r us: Online social networking and the potential for empowerment. Surveillance and Society, 8(2), 151-165.
Selfridge, M., & Mitchell, L. M. (2020). Social media as moral laboratory: street involved youth, death and grief. Journal of Youth Studies. DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2020.1746758
Siriaraya, P., Tang, C., Ang, C. S., Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2011). A comparison of empathetic communication pattern for teenagers and older people in online support communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(5), 617-628.
Spicker, P. (2011). Ethical covert research. Sociology 45(1), 118-133.
Steeves, V., & Regan, P. (2014). Young people and the social value of privacy. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(4), 298-313.
Stevens, G., O’Donnell, V. L., & Williams, L. (2015). Public domain or private data? Developing an ethical approach to social media research in an inter-disciplinary project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 21(2), 154-167.
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P. M., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 651-666.
Taylor, C. G. (2008). Counterproductive effects of parental consent in research involving LGBTTIQ youth: International research ethics and a study of a transgender and Two-Spirit community in Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(3), 34-56.
Trevisan, F., & Reilly, P. (2014). Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: Lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1131-1146.
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363-379.
Yang, K. W. (2007). Organizing MySpace: Youth walkouts, pleasure, politics, and new media. Educational Foundations, 21, 9-28.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles are published in Studies in Social Justice under the Creative Commons "Attribution/Non-Commercial/No Derivative Works" Canada licence.
The copyright for the articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles may be used, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. The submission of a manuscript to Studies in Social Justice will be taken to mean that the author understands and agrees to the following:
- the manuscript represents original work not previously published;
- the manuscript is not being considered elsewhere for publication in the same language (publication elsewhere in an alternate language does not preclude acceptance of submission to Studies in Social Justice);
- appropriate written copyright permissions have been secured for republication of any copyrighted material contained in the manuscript;
- copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to Studies in Social Justice;
- by virtue of its appearance in this open access journal, it is understood that the article is freely available for use, with proper attribution, for educational and other non-commercial purposes;
- reuse of the article for commercial purposes by anyone other than the author requires permission of the author;
- the author agrees to cite Studies in Social Justice as a source whenever h/she later republishes or reuses the article in other platforms.
