'Ethical and privacy considerations for research using online fandom data' by Brianna Dym and Casey Fiesler in (2020) 33
Transformative Works and Cultures comments
As online fandom continues to grow, so do the public data created by fan creations and interactions. With researchers and journalists regularly engaging with those data (and not always asking permission), many fans are concerned that their content might end up in front of the wrong audience, which could lead to privacy violations or even harassment from within or outside of fandom. To better understand fan perspectives on the collection and analysis of public data as a methodology, we conducted both an interview study and a survey to solicit responses that would help provide a broader understanding of fandom's privacy norms as they relate to the ethical use of data. We use these findings to revisit and recommend best practices for working with public data within fandom.
The authors argue
Transformative fandom has long occupied the grey spaces online. Because fandom is both entirely open to the public and living in the cracks of obscurity, accessing its communities sometimes feels like knowing the secret knock to get into the speakeasy tucked away in the back alley. People come inside. They order their favorite special at the bar ("I'll have a 'And They Were Roommates,' please"). They make idle conversation with other patrons as they wait for the next performer or their favorite bartender to come along. At the end of the night, these visitors return home, friends and family often none the wiser to where they were or the specific transactions of their nightlife, though any of them could have easily come to the speakeasy if they had only known where to look.
The metaphor neatly encapsulates online fandom life—though in the digital world those interactions also leave data traces, and knowing who has seen them is not as easy as looking around the room to see who else is there. The transactions of their nightlife have been broadcasted the entire time, leaving a trail of public data that is accessible, identifiable, and valuable.
Even outside the context of fandom, many people are unsure at best as to whether or not their data are publicly viewable and how they might be accessed by third parties (Proferes 2017). Journalists, for example, might include a public tweet in an article to represent public opinion on a news-relevant issue. Meanwhile, internet researchers are increasingly collecting public data that may seem ephemeral to social media users but in fact lingers, and many of those users are entirely unaware that their data can legally be collected for research purposes (Fiesler and Proferes 2018).
The disconnect between people, their data, and how others use them is complicated by the fact that researchers disagree over norms for studying public data as well as a definition for what public even means (Vitak, Shilton, and Ashktorab 2016). For example, while some researchers might argue that public data are freely accessible and therefore usable (Zimmer 2010), fan studies scholars often argue that scholars ought to inform or ask people about using their data, regardless of whether or not they are accessible (Nielsen 2016). While not all disciplines are in agreement, scholarship on the ethics of studying fandom has emphasized the need to preserve fan privacy (Busse and Hellekson 2012), prioritize transparency in research (Bennett 2018), and gain permission from fans before referencing their work in academic research (Busse and Hellekson 2012). These principles often sit in contrast to how many disciplines approach the ethics of using public data in their own work.
Fan studies cover a wide variety of domains and methods. For example, fan scholars have provided literary analysis of fan works (Coppa 2017), analysis of human behavior (Guerrero-Pico, Establés, and Ventura 2018), and an understanding of different learning that occurs within fan communities (Black 2005; Evans et al. 2017). Bethan Jones (2016) has identified two primary traditions of approaching fan studies research: (1) literary analysis, when the content creator is assumed inaccessible and a fan work is the subject of study, and (2) human subjects research, in which the creator is the subject of study—whether with consent (e.g., interviews or surveys) or without consent (e.g., collecting public trace data).
Traditional human subjects research, where consent must be established for data collection, often falls under the purview of ethical review bodies such as institutional review boards (IRBs) at US universities. However, many IRBs consider the collection of public data to not constitute human subjects research because it typically does not involve direct interaction with humans or collection of personally identifiable information (Vitak et al. 2017). Perhaps in part because of this line drawn by IRBs, a common perception among researchers is that the most important question for using data is whether they are public, regardless of other relevant factors such as users' expectations of privacy (Zimmer 2010). Our goal with the work here is to bridge discussions in fan studies with broader conversations about use of public data in research across all disciplines.
Fan studies are an interesting context for examining the intersection of research ethics and privacy, in part because of the long-standing social norms that dictate sharing and privacy behavior (Dym and Fiesler 2018a). We also think that it is important that fans have a voice in determining best practices for researchers. To that end, we conducted an interview study and a large-scale survey in which we asked about privacy and ethical concerns in relation to fandom and public data. By fandom, we mean transformative fandom, or an online fan community that both creates and shares fan works that are transformative of source material through writing fan fiction, creating fan art, or other creative practices.
Our findings further illustrate the concerns that fandom communities have about privacy, safety, and the integrity of their content. This includes (1) special concern for fans from marginalized backgrounds (especially LGBTQ fans) who may face serious consequences from privacy violations; (2) fear of harassment within fandom; and (3) the importance of positionality within and understanding of fandom for researchers. Our findings contribute to specific recommendations for working with public data generated within fandom, including special care to avoid amplifying fan content and ways that researchers can care for the trust they receive. These findings stand to inform broader discussions on what constitutes the ethical use of public data within other types of research as well, particularly for vulnerable populations.
'“Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics' by Casey Fiesler and Nicholas Proferes
in (2018)
Social Media + Society comments
Social computing systems such as Twitter present new research sites that have provided billions of data points to researchers. However, the availability of public social media data has also presented ethical challenges. As the research community works to create ethical norms, we should be considering users’ concerns as well. With this in mind, we report on an exploratory survey of Twitter users’ perceptions of the use of tweets in research. Within our survey sample, few users were previously aware that their public tweets could be used by researchers, and the majority felt that researchers should not be able to use tweets without consent. However, we find that these attitudes are highly contextual, depending on factors such as how the research is conducted or disseminated, who is conducting it, and what the study is about. The findings of this study point to potential best practices for researchers conducting observation and analysis of public data.
The authors state
In recent years, research ethics has become a topic of greater public scrutiny. This is particularly the case for research taking place on or using data from social computing systems (McNeal, 2014; Wood, 2014; Zimmer, 2010a). However, as Vitak, Shilton, and Ashktorab (2016) point out in a study of ethical practices and beliefs among online data researchers, there are not agreed upon norms or best practices in this space. Organizations such as the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR) have offered guides for researchers (Ess and AOIR Ethics Working Committee, 2002), although these guidelines have had to be revised as new platforms present novel research contexts and as data collection practices evolve alongside them (Markham, Buchanan and AOIR Ethics Working Committee, 2012). It is also rare that the people whose data are being studied are involved in the development of such guidelines. However, public reaction to research ethics controversies (McNeal, 2014; Wood, 2014; Zimmer, 2016) suggests that these individuals have opinions about how researchers should study and use online systems and data. Brown, Weilenmann, Mcmillan, and Lampinen (2016) suggest that research ethics should be grounded in “the sensitivities of those being studied” and “everyday practice” as opposed to bureaucratic or legal concerns. We therefore suggest users can help inform ethical research practices.
Traditional interventional human subjects research involves informed consent and direct interaction with participants who are aware they are being studied. Under certain regulatory conditions, research that falls outside of this scope may not be strongly regulated. For example, in the United States, the use of publicly available data (e.g., tweets) may not meet the criteria of research involving human subjects as per the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.101). However, there is a lack of consensus among individual university institutional review boards (IRBs) on this point (Vitak, Proferes, Shilton and Ashktorab, 2017). Data obtained from sources such as Twitter most often do not constitute research that requires their oversight or informed consent practices. Most researchers who use data sets of tweets do not gain consent from each Twitter user whose tweet is collected, nor are those users typically given notice by the researcher. Although Twitter’s Privacy Policy now mentions that academics may use tweets as part of research, this update was not included until revisions were made to the policy in the Fall of 2014.1 Moreover, Internet users rarely read or could fully understand website terms and conditions (Fiesler, Lampe and Bruckman, 2016; Luger, Moran and Rodden, 2013; Reidenberg, Breaux, Cranor and French, 2015).
Although there are a great many open questions around research ethics, including around experimental manipulation on online platforms (Schechter and Bravo-Lillo, 2014), for this study, we focus specifically on the issue of researchers’ use of public social media content. Because of the prominent use of Twitter data in research (Zimmer and Proferes, 2014), in this study, we ask: how do Twitter users feel about the use of their tweets in research?
Our goal with this work is not to suggest whether or not use of Twitter data is ethical or not based entirely on user attitudes. Instead, we aim to inform ethical decision-making by researchers and regulatory bodies by reporting on how user expectations align with the actual uses of their data by researchers. Therefore, we designed our survey instrument to probe contextual factors that impact whether Twitter users find studying their content acceptable. This study is exploratory, providing initial insights into a complicated space.
In brief, the majority of Twitter users in our study do not realize that researchers make use of tweets, and a majority also believe researchers should not be able to do so without permission. However, these attitudes are highly contextual, differing based on factors such as how the research is conducted or disseminated, who the researchers are, and what the study is about. After describing the study and findings, we conclude with a discussion of what these findings might suggest for best practices for Twitter research and offer potential design interventions that could help mitigate some user concerns.
