Ethical Use of Social Media to Facilitate Qualitative Research

Abstract

Increasingly, qualitative health researchers might consider using social media to facilitate communication with participants. Ambiguity surrounding the potential risks intrinsic to social media could hinder ethical conduct and discourage use of this innovative method. We used some core principles of traditional human research ethics, that is, respect, integrity, and beneficence, to design our photo elicitation research that explored the social influences of drinking alcohol among 34 underage women in metropolitan South Australia. Facebook aided our communication with participants, including correspondence ranging from recruitment to feeding back results and sharing research data. This article outlines the ethical issues we encountered when using Facebook to interact with participants and provides guidance to researchers planning to incorporate social media as a tool in their qualitative studies. In particular, we raise the issues of privacy and confidentiality as contemporary risks associated with research using social media.

Keywords

alcohol/alcoholism ethics / moral perspectives Internet young adults sociology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allied Business Intelligence Research. (2013). 45 million Windows Phone and 20 million BlackBerry 10 smartphones in active use at year-end; enough to keep developers interested [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.abiresearch.com/press/45-million-windows-phone-and-20-million-blackberry

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey Report (Drug Statistics Series No. 25). Canberra: Author.

Australian Interactive Media Association. (2013). Yellow social media report: What Australian people and businesses are doing with social media. Sydney: Sensis.

Bauman

(2006). Liquid fear. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Beck

(1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi, India: SAGE.

Borlagdan

Freeman

Duvnjak

Lunnay

Bywood

Roche

A. M.

(2010). From ideal to reality: Cultural contradictions and young people’s drinking. Adelaide: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders University.

Bourdieu

(1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu

(1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744.

Bruckman

(2002). Ethical guidelines for research online. Retrieved from www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics/

10.

Compaine

B. M.

(Ed.). (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

11.

Douglas

J. D.

(1985). Creative interviewing. London: SAGE.

12.

Elgesem

(2002). What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 195–203. doi:10.1023/A:1021320510186

13.

Elliott

A. M.

Urry

(2010). Mobile lives. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

14.

Furman

Langer

C. L.

Davis

C. S.

Gallardo

H. P.

Kulkarni

(2007). Expressive, research and reflective poetry as qualitative inquiry: A study of adolescent identity. Qualitative Research, 7, 301–315. doi:10.1177/1468794107078511

15.

Goodkind

(2011). The world population at 7 billion. Retrieved from http://blogs.census.gov/2011/10/31/the-world-population-at-7-billion/

16.

Google. (2012). Our mobile planet: Understanding the mobile consumer. Retrieved from http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/our_mobile_planet_australia_en.pdf

17.

Grbich

(2004). New approaches in social research. London: SAGE.

18.

Guta

Nixon

S. A.

Wilson

M. G.

(2012). Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 301–310. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.019

19.

Haggerty

K. D.

(2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391–414. doi:0162-0436/04/1200-0391/0

20.

Hammersley

(2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. London: SAGE.

21.

Harper

(2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13–26. doi:10.1080/147-25860220137345

22.

Helsper

E. J.

(2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. London: The Department for Communities and Local Government.

23.

Horsburgh

(2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12, 307–312.

24.

Livingstone

(2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Society, 10, 393–411. doi:10.1177/1461444808089415

25.

Luhmann

(2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Diego

(Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford, UK: Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.

26.

Lunnay

Ward

Borlagdan

(2011). The practise and practice of Bourdieu: The application of social theory to youth alcohol research. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 428–436. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.07.013

27.

Markham

Buchanan

(2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Chicago: Association of Internet Researchers, Research Ethics Working Committee.

28.

Martin

(2005). The information society and the digital divide: Some north south comparisons. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 1(4), 30–41.

29.

Morse

J. M.

(2007). Ethics in action: Ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1003–1005. doi:10.1177/1049732307308197

30.

The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2013). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

31.

Nind

Wiles

Bengry-Howell

Crow

(2012). Methodological innovation and research ethics: Forces in tension or forces in harmony? Qualitative Research, 13(6), 650–667. doi:10.1177/1468794112455042

32.

Oakley

(1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Roberts

(Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

33.

Orton-Johnson

(2010). Ethics in online research: Evaluating the ESRC framework for research ethics categorisation of risk. Sociological Research Online, 15(4), 13–17. doi:10.5153/sro.2261

34.

Popay

Rogers

Williams

(1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341–351. doi:10.1177/104973239800800305. Retrieved from www.qualres.org/HomePopa-3686.html

35.

QSR International. (2012). NVivo 10 Available from http://www.qsrinternational.com

36.

Queensland University of Technology. (2013). Using social media in research. Retrieved from www.research.qut.edu.au/ethics/humans/faqs/social.jsp

37.

Richardson

Hessey

(2009). Archiving the self? Facebook as biography of social and relational memory. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 7, 25–38. doi:10.1108/14779960910938070

38.

Ryan

Xenos

(2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658–1664.

39.

Strack

R. W.

Magill

McDonagh

(2004). Engaging youth through photovoice. Health Promotion Practice, 5, 49–58. doi:10.1177/1524839903258015

40.

Tavani

H. T.

(2003). Ethical reflections on the digital divide. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 1, 99–108. doi:10.1108/14779960380000230

41.

Torronen

(2002). Semiotic theory on qualitative interviewing using stimulus texts. Qualitative Research, 2, 343–362. doi:10.1177/146879410200200304

42.

Wang

C. C.

Redwood-Jones

(2001). Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from flint photovoice. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 560–572. doi:10.1177/109019810102800504

43.

Ward

P. R.

Henderson

Coveney

Meyer

(2012). How do South Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition? The importance of risk, trust and uncertainty. Journal of Sociology, 48, 23–41. doi:10.1177/1440783311407947

44.

Warschauer

(2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

45.

Wiles

Prosser

Bagnoli

Clark

Davies

Holland

Renold

(2008). Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research. Southampton, UK: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.

46.

Zimmer

(2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12, 313–325. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5