The Association of Internet Researchers’ ethical guidelines sum up the situation, “ethical conundrums are complex and rarely decided along binary lines.” It is important to note that AoIR uses the term guidelines and not code. It implies that the ground is always shifting and our perception of the internet is not stable.
All content on the internet has been created by a person. Most research involves analyzing text. Many people tend to divorce the written word from the author. This can create some uncomfortable situations if the research is current which means that the person is likely to be alive (possibly why most literary critics wait till the author is dead). A comment on the web is also not seen in the same manner as words in a book. It is more analogous to talking. This is one aspect that is attractive for ethnographic methods. However when something is said in the physical world, it is heard by those around them and then disappears forever. While online communications have the habit of staying around permanently. So when a study is published it can draw attention to a person’s comment and be easily found thus eroding a person’s anonymity or confidentiality.
Another issue is whether the internet is a public or private space. We tend to access the internet individually on our own devices. Mentally we don’t think about the fact that others are looking at the same content simultaneously. When we do think about this we tend to get squeamish. For example the people who created bit.ly had an experiment where everyone viewing a news site was able to see everyone’s mouse pointers and leave comments anywhere on the page in real time. It was a disaster. Many people left quickly and didn’t return while others chased each others’ mouse pointers around and started flame wars. For some reason we don’t like to think of the internet as being a public space but it is one.
I thought the reading about fabricating research has some good ideas on how to protect an individuals anonymity (or confidentiality), as well as, convey an online ethnographic study as taking place in a public space. One strength of qualitative research is that it provides an understanding of personal experience. Is it important that each person is kept separate or is a composite able to convey the same information? I agree that a composite does not take away from our understanding of a situation and may be able to enhance our understanding. I think the objection I was hearing from my class mates stems from the poor word choice of fabrication. One definition of fabrication is to tell lies. Telling lies is the last thing a researcher wants to be accused of doing. But what term would be better? Other building terms such as cobbling, manufacturing, and erecting are not much better. Unfortunately I don’t have a good suggestion.
On a basic level an ethical violation could be seen as any situation were someone (including the researcher) could be harmed by the disclosure of information. The AoIR states that this concept needs to be considered and defined by each researcher and not just seen as institutional hoops to jump through. This reminds me of my freshman year in college when the resident hall adviser would catch me and my friends doing something questionable. He would say, “If you know it’s wrong, then why are you doing it.”