ArticleMinerva2019
The Ethics Ecosystem: Personal Ethics, Network Governance and Regulating Actors Governing the Use of Social Media Research Data.
Article in Minerva, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel.PloS one · 2024Article
- UK health researchers' considerations of the environmental impacts of their data-intensive practices and its relevance to health inequities.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Ethical and legal considerations in social media research for health technology assessment: conclusions from a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Bio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Research Ethical Norms, Guidance and the Internet.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Boundaries Between Research Ethics and Ethical Research Use in Artificial Intelligence Health Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Population health AI researchers' perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2021Article
- Responsible Open Science: Moving towards an Ethics of Environmental Sustainability.Publications (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Defining ethical standards for the application of digital tools to population health research.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Article
- Article
- The Challenges of Big Data for Research Ethics Committees: A Qualitative Swiss Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
- Reasoning "Uncharted Territory": Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper examines the consequences of a culture of "personal ethics" when using new methodologies, such as the use of social media (SM) sites as a source of data for research. Using SM research as an example, this paper explores the practices of a number of actors and researchers within the "Ethics Ecosystem" which as a network governs ethically responsible research behaviour. In the case of SM research, the ethical use of this data is currently in dispute, as even though it is seemingly publically available, concerns relating to privacy, vulnerability, potential harm and consent blur the lines of responsible ethical research behaviour. The findings point to the dominance of a personal, bottom-up, researcher-led, 'ethical barometer' for making decisions regarding the permissibility of using SM data. We show that the use of different barometers by different researchers can lead to wide disparities in ethical practice - disparities which are compounded by the lack of firm guidelines for responsible practice of SM research. This has widespread consequences on the development of shared norms and understandings at all levels, and by all actors within the Ethics Ecosystem, and risks inconsistencies in their approaches to ethical decision-making. This paper argues that this governance of ethical behaviour by individual researchers perpetuates a negative cycle of academic practice that is dependent on subjective judgements by researchers themselves, rather than governed by more formalised academic institutions such as the research ethics committee and funding council guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.