Increased usage and accessibility of the Internet has led to the rapid growth of cyber communities; typical of groups that have embraced this idea are those who participate in what have been termed alternative or lifestyle sports. Thus far, this online world has received little attention from ethnographers, but the potential for obtaining rich data in this area is huge, most notably through the practice of researching messages sent to Internet-based forums, known as list mining. The inclusion of list mining as a research method, however, is not without its problems and raises new ethical issues when conducting qualitative research. This paper examines in detail the ethical considerations concerning the use of list mining as a method of data collection within the alternative sporting subculture of Ultimate Frisbee.
Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved October 7, 2008 from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
3.
BarnesS. (2004). Issues of attribution and identification in online social research. In JohnsM.ChenS., & HallG. (Eds.), Online social research (pp. 203–222). New York: Peter Lang.
4.
BealB. (1995). Disqualifying the official: An exploration of social resistance through the subculture of skateboarding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(3), 252–267.
5.
BoothD. (2003). Expression sessions: Surfing style and prestige. In RinehartR. & SydnorS. (Eds.), To the extreme: Alternative sports, inside and out (pp. 315–336). Albany: SUNY Press.
6.
BordinI. (2001). Skateboarding, space and the city: Architecture and the body. Oxford: Berg.
7.
BrewerJ. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University.
BrymanA. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
ButtsS. (2001). Good to the last drop: Understanding surfers' motivations. Sociology of Sport Online (SOSOL), 4(1), 1–7.
11.
CastellsM. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
12.
ChildressC. & AsamenJ. (1998). The emerging relationship of psychology and the Internet: Proposed guidelines for conducting research. Ethics and Behaviour, 8(1), 19–35.
13.
DelorneD.ZinkhamG., & FrenchW. (2001). Ethics and the Internet: Issues associated with qualitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4), 271–286.
14.
DienerE. & CrandallR. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioural research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
EichbergH. (1998). Body cultures: Essays on sport. Space and identity. London: Routledge.
16.
ElgesemD. (2002). What is special about the ethical issues in online research?Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 195–203.
17.
EysenbachG. & TillJ. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323(7321), 1103–1105.
18.
FrankelM. & SiangS. (1999). Ethical and legal issues of human subjects research on the Internet: Report of an AAAS workshop. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
19.
GarciaA.StandleeA., & CuiY. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the Internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 52–84.
20.
GrimesS. (2008). Researching the researchers: Market researchers, child subjects and the problem of “informed” consent. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 1(1), 66–91.
21.
HammersleyM. & AtkinsonP. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
22.
HerringS. (1996). Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153–168.
23.
HewsonC.LaurentD., & VogelC. (1996). Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(2), 186–191.
24.
HewsonC.YuleP.LaurentD., & VogelC. (2003). Internet research methods: A practical guide for the social and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.
25.
HineV. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
26.
HudsonJ. & BruckmanA. (2004). Go away: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. Information Society, 20(2), 127–139.
27.
HumphreysD. (1997). Shredheads go mainstream? Snowboarding and alternative youth. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32(2), 147–160.
28.
JonesR. (1994). The ethics of research in cyberspace. Internet Research, 4(3), 30–35.
29.
KendallL. (1999). Recontextualising cyberspace: Methodological considerations for on-line research. In JonesS. (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 57–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
KingS. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119–127.
31.
KozinetsR.V. (1998). On netnography: Initial reflections on consumer investigations of cyberculture. In AlbaJ. & HutchinsonW. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, vol. 25 (pp. 366–371). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
32.
LangeP. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), art. 18. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html.
LawsonD. (2004). Blurring the boundaries: Ethical considerations for online research using synchronous CMC forums. In BuchananE. (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 80–99). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
35.
MarkhamA. (1998). Life online: Researching the real experience in virtual space. London: Altamira Press.
36.
MarkhamA. (2008). Small talk. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 1(1), 4–8.
37.
MarkhamA. N. & BaymN. K. (Eds.) (2009). Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Los Angeles: Sage.
38.
MayerM. & TillJ. (1996). The Internet: A modern Pandora's box?Quality of Life Research, 5(6), 568–571.
39.
McKeeH. & PorterJ. (2009). Researching, blogs, chats, discussion forums, and social networking sites. In McKeeH. & PorterJ. (Eds.), The ethics of Internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process (pp. 75–112). New York: Peter Lang.
40.
MillerD. & SlaterD. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
41.
MurrayC. & SixsmithJ. (1998). E-mail: A qualitative research medium for interviewing?International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(2), 103–121.
42.
PaceL. & LivingstonM. (2005). Protecting human subjects in Internet research. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 10(1), 35–41.
43.
PinkS. (2001). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London: Sage.
44.
ReidE. (1996). Informed consent in the study of on-line communities: A reflection on the effects of computer-mediated social research. The Information Society, 12(2), 169–174.
45.
RinehartR. E. & SydnorS. (Eds.) (2003). To the extreme: Alternative sports, inside and out. Albany: SUNY Press.
46.
RobertsL.SmithL., & PollockC. (2004). Conducting ethical research online: Respect for individuals, identities and the ownership of words. In BuchananE. (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 159–176). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
47.
Royal College of Physicians (RCP). (1996). Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine: Research based on archived information and samples. Recommendations from the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 33, 264–266.
48.
SandersT. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In HineC. (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg.
49.
SandsR. (2002). Sport ethnography. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
50.
SharfB. (1997). Communicating breast cancer on-line: Support and empowerment on the Internet. Women & Health, 26(1), 65–84.
51.
SharfB. (1999). Beyond Netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the Internet. In JonesS. (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net. London: Sage.
52.
SmithK. (2004). Electronic eavesdropping: The ethics involved in conducting a virtual ethnography. In JohnsM. D.ChenS.-L., & HallG. J. (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics. New York: Peter Lang.
StewartK. & WilliamsM. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 395–416.
55.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
StubbsP. (1998). Conflict and co-operation in the virtual community: E-mail and the Wars of the Yugoslav Succession. Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/7.html.
57.
SveningssonM. (2004). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In BuchananE. A. (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 45–61). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishers.
58.
ElmSveningsson M.BuchananE. A., & SternS. R. (2009). How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative Internet research? In MarkhamA. N. & BaymN. K. (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 69–87). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
59.
TillJ. E. (2006). Policing of information from Internet breast cancer list: “List mining” raises new issues in research ethics. British Medical Journal, 332(7549), 1095.
60.
WheatonB. (2000). “Just do it”: Consumption, commitment, and identity in the windsurfing subculture. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17(3), 254–274.
WilliamsM. (2007). Cybercrime and online methodologies. In KingR. D. & WincupE. (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
