Table Of Contents
- About the author(s)/editor(s)
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Table of Contents
- Foreword: Grounding Internet Research Ethics 3.0: A View from (the) AoIR (Charles Ess)
- Expanding the frameworks: feminism, virtue ethics, and software engineers
- Introductory Material
- Introduction (Michael Zimmer / Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda)
- Organization of the book
- Internet Research Ethics: Twenty Years Later (Elizabeth Buchanan)
- Part One: Challenges
- Conceptual Challenges
- Chapter One: Recasting Justice for Internet and Online Industry Research Ethics (Anna Lauren Hoffmann / Anne Jonas)
- Justice and Research Ethics
- New challenges: justice and online industry research
- Online harassment and vulnerable populations
- Concluding remarks
- Reaction by Céline Ehrwein Nihan
- Chapter Two: A Feminist Perspective on Ethical Digital Methods (Mary Elizabeth Luka / Mélanie Millette / Jacqueline Wallace)
- Towards an epistemology of feminist digital research ethics
- Ethics of care as a commitment to equity in research
- Practices of Care
- Taking Diversity into Account: New Materialism’s Implications for “Lively” Data
- Investigating Digital Labor: Practices of Care in the Knowledge Economy
- Digital Labor, Digital Dilemmas: Messiness at Work
- Studying Online Sociality: Reflecting (on) the Human in Digital Traces
- Conclusion: an ethical engagement
- Reaction by Annette N. Markham
- Chapter Three: Sorting Things Out Ethically: Privacy as a Research Issue beyond the Individual (Tobias Matzner / Carsten Ochs)
- Privacy as individual control: the bourgeois legacy of privacy discourse
- Why individualistic privacy discourse fails to match current practices
- Post-individualist privacy in internet Research: data enacting Subjects
- Conclusion: Novel ethical orientations for internet research
- Reaction by Céline Ehrwein Nihan
- Reaction by Christian Pentzold
- Reaction by D. E. Wittkower
- Chapter Four: Chasing ISIS: Network Power, Distributed Ethics and Responsible Social Media Research (Jonathon Hutchinson / Fiona Martin / Aim Sinpeng)
- Normative approaches to social media research ethics
- Distributed morality and ethics
- Network power, ethical procedure, and ethics in practice
- Privacy, confidentiality, and social visibility
- Researching the islamic state online
- Reaction by Katleen Gabriels
- Reaction by Christian Pentzold
- Data Challenges
- Chapter Five: Lost Umbrellas: Bias and the Right to Be Forgotten in Social Media Research (Rebekah Tromble / Daniela Stockmann)
- The Hong Kong umbrella movement
- Twitter’s terms of service
- The umbrella movement twitter data
- Bias in social network analysis
- Network Measurement Error
- Correlation of Centrality Rankings
- Reaction by Zoetanya Sujon
- Reaction by Arvind Narayanan
- Chapter Six: Bad Judgment, Bad Ethics?: Validity in Computational Social Media Research (Cornelius Puschmann)
- Where does the data come from, and what is done with it?
- What counts as data (and to whom)?
- Who has a stake in data?
- How diverse and representative is data?
- What does data signify?
- What interpretations does data permit?
- Who owns and controls data?
- Reaction by Nicholas Proferes
- Chapter Seven: To Share or Not to Share?: Ethical Challenges in Sharing Social Media-based Research Data (Katrin Weller / Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda)
- Background and method
- Archiving social media data
- Social media researchers’ perspectives
- Results and discussion
- To share: arguments for data sharing
- Not to Share: Ethical Considerations against Data Sharing
- Pitfalls in Practice and Other Ethical Sharing Dilemmas
- Conclusion: towards ethical social media data sharing
- Reaction by Alexander Halavais
- Reaction by Bonnie Tijerina
- Applied Challenges
- Chapter Eight: “We Tend to Err on the Side of Caution”: Ethical Challenges Facing Canadian Research Ethics Boards When Overseeing Internet Research (Yukari Seko / Stephen P. Lewis)
- Introduction: canadian framework for internet research
- Data Collection
- Data Analysis
- Types of Internet Research
- Ethical Challenges Pertinent to Internet-based Research
- Gaps in the Current National Framework, Challenges, and Expectations
- Local Best Practices
- Reaction by Michelle C. Forelle and Sarah Myers West
- Reaction by Katleen Gabriels
- Chapter Nine: Internet Research Ethics in a Non-Western Context (Soraj Hongladarom)
- The need for the same set of rules
- Different paths toward the same goal
- A case in internet research ethics: an MA thesis on “the use of internet and the role of housewife”
- Reaction by Zoetanya Sujon
- Part Two: Cases
- Chapter Ten: Living Labs – An Ethical Challenge for Researchers and Platform Operators (Philipp Schaer)
- Enabling in vivo experimentation: living labs and innovation systems
- User motivational studies using living labs approaches
- Ethical Concerns in the Wiki Setup
- Living labs for information systems and retrieval tasks
- Ethical Challenges for Participants of Living Labs
- Ethical Challenges for Platform Operators of Living Labs
- Chapter Eleven: Ethics of Using Online Commercial Crowdsourcing Sites for Academic Research: The Case of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Matthew Pittman / Kim Sheehan)
- Internet-based research and mechanical turk
- Ethical concerns with mechanical turk
- Low Wages
- Partial Work
- Lack of Transparency
- Ethical considerations and possible solutions
- Partial Payments
- Conclusion: modeling of ethical behavior
- Chapter Twelve: Museum Ethnography in the Digital Age: Ethical Considerations (Natalia Grincheva)
- Ethical dilemmas of digital museum ethnographers
- Concluding remarks
- Chapter Thirteen: Participant Anonymity and Participant Observations: Situating the Researcher within Digital Ethnography (James Robson)
- Ethical decision-making in messy social contexts
- Conclusion and lessons learned
- Chapter Fourteen: The Social Age of “It’s not a Private Problem”: Case Study of Ethical and Privacy Concerns in a Digital Ethnography of South Asian Blogs against Intimate Partner Violence (Ishani Mukherjee)
- Blogs as social data mines
- Identity Performance and Participation: Ethical Challenges for Cultural Blog Research
- Reworking Public-private Schisms: Digital Ethnography of Ethno-cultural Blogs
- “It’s not a private problem”: case study analysis of south asian blogs against IPV
- Current and future challenges of blog research ethics
- Chapter Fifteen: Studying Closed Communities On-line: Digital Methods and Ethical Considerations beyond Informed Consent and Anonymity (Ylva Hård af Segerstad / Dick Kasperowski / Christopher Kullenberg / Christine Howes)
- The case: a closed facebook group
- Ethical principles in relation to studying on-line communities
- A step-by-step discussion on research ethics in Practice
- Step 1: Access to Data
- Step 2: Collecting Found Data
- Step 3: Analyzing Data
- Step 4: Dissemination/Publication of Data
- Chapter Sixteen: An Ethical Inquiry into Youth Suicide Prevention Using Social Media Mining (Amaia Eskisabel-Azpiazu / Rebeca Cerezo-Menéndez / Daniel Gayo-Avello)
- The samaritans radar fiasco
- Technological and deontological considerations of social media based suicide prevention
- Chapter Seventeen: Death, Affect and the Ethical Challenges of Outing a Griefsquatter (Lisbeth Klastrup)
- The case
- Research Context
- The Beginning
- The Discovery
- Making a Stand and Going Public
- The Ramifications
- Post-case Reflections
- Chapter Eighteen: Locating Locational Data in Mobile and Social Media (Lee Humphreys)
- Locational data are becoming easier to Collect
- Locational data are increasingly easy to access (by some)
- Locations are understood differently by databases versus people
- Different populations have different concerns about locational data sharing
- Ethical consideration of locational data
- People Do Not Always Understand When They Are Sharing Locational Data and With Whom
- Just Because People Share Locational Data, Does Not Mean They Want to Be Located
- Locational Data Is Meaningful in Different Ways to Different People
- Chapter Nineteen: How Does It Feel to Be Visualized?: Redistributing Ethics (David Moats / Jessamy Perriam)
- Complications to existing literature
- Distributed ethics
- Empirical examples
- Part Three: Contexts
- Chapter Twenty: Negotiating Consent, Compensation, and Privacy in Internet Research: PatientsLikeMe.com as a Case Study (Robert Douglas Ferguson)
- The scraping incident
- Ethical issues
- Ethical Issue 1: User Agreements as Informed Consent
- Ethical Issue 2: Labor and Compensation
- Ethical Issue 3: Privacy and Personally Identifying Information
- Chapter Twenty-One: The Ethics of Using Hacked Data: Patreon’s Data Hack and Academic Data Standards (Nathaniel Poor)
- Chapter Twenty-Two: The Ethics of Sensory Ethnography: Virtual Reality Fieldwork in Zones of Conflict (Jeff Shuter / Benjamin Burroughs)
- Chapter Twenty-Three: Images of Faces Gleaned from Social Media in Social Psychological Research on Sexual Orientation (Patrick Sweeney)
- Gathering facial Stimuli
- Ethical challenges
- Privacy and Consent
- Faces as Unique Representations of the Self
- Sexuality, Sensitivity, and Safety
- Chapter Twenty-Four: Twitter Research in the Disaster Context – Ethical Concerns for Working with Historical Datasets (Martina Wengenmeir)
- Vulnerable populations and situational contexts
- Access, filtering and storage
- Epilogue: Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age (Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda / Michael Zimmer)
- Research ethics and informed consent with social data
- So – what to do?
- Contributor Biographies
- Series Index
Michael Zimmer and Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda have brought together a carefully organized and critically important anthology – important for its own sake and, as I will try to show, as this volume both indexes and inaugurates a third wave of Internet Research Ethics (IRE). That is, we can think of the first era of IRE – IRE 1.0 – to emerge alongside the initial IRE guidelines developed and issued by the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) in 2002 (Ess & AoIR Ethics Working Committee). To be sure, as Elizabeth Buchanan makes clear here in her magisterial overview of the past 20 years of IRE, the first AoIR document rests on considerably older roots. At the same time, it served as at least a partial foundation for the second AoIR document, “Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0)” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012). As Buchanan shows, this second document – what many of us take as central to IRE 2.0 – was catalyzed by the multiple shifts affiliated with “the era of social computing took hold, circa 2005.” This shifts included first and foremost the rise of social networking sites (SNSs) such as MySpace, Friendster, and the now hegemonic Facebook, followed by an explosion of diverse venues and forms of social media that more or less define contemporary communication venues (e.g., Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Instagram, just to name the primary usual suspects). These shifts further included dramatically expanded possibilities for “users” to actively engage in internet-facilitated communication venues, e.g., in the form of blogs, certainly, but also by creating and uploading content to sites such as YouTube. Many of the ethical ← ix | x → questions and dilemmas taken up by IRE 2.0 were further occasioned by the rise of mobile internet access – i.e., the introduction and diffusion of smartphones, beginning roughly in 2008. Last but certainly not least, as Buchanan notes, the era of Big Data research, beginning ca. 2010, likewise issued in a new range of issues and possible resolutions addressed in the AoIR 2.0 document.
The current volume does nothing less than inaugurate and critically ground an emerging IRE 3.0. To be sure, the volume takes social media as its defining thread: but several of the individual contributions make equally clear that “social media” encompass a staggering range of venues, communicative possibilities, and thereby research interests, methodologies, and so on. To my eye, they thereby highlight and help initiate the still richer and more extensive ethical discussions that will constitute IRE 3.0.
To begin with, it is important to notice that just as IRE 2.0 was an extension, not a rejection of IRE 3.0 – so IRE 3.0 continues to build upon these previous documents and now rather extensive affiliated literatures. Indeed, I have argued that in some cases of IRE 2.0, “what is old is new again” – i.e., IRE 1.0 considerations surrounding informed consent can prove useful in 2.0 Big Data research projects (Ess, 2016). In these directions, it is not surprising to see in the current volume that concerns with privacy remain paramount. That is, privacy intersects with the most basic obligations of Human Subjects Protections at the foundations of IRE – namely, obligations to preserve anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent. So privacy concerns figure large in the contributions here from Ishani Mukherjee; Ylva Hård af Segerstad et al; Amaia Eskisabel-Azpiazu, Rebeca Cerezo-Menéndez, and Daniel Gayo-Avello; Lisbeth Klastrup; Robert Douglas Ferguson; Patrick Sweeney; and Martina Wengenmeir.
But of course, these concerns are often dramatically transformed – not only by the rise of social media and big data, as IRE 2.0 already recognized. In addition, what I see as the most significant novelties here, i.e., what can be taken on board as signature themes and concerns for IRE 3.0, rest on a growing recognition of perhaps the most profound shift affecting IRE – namely, the shift from a primarily individual conception of selfhood and identity towards a more relational conception This shift emerges early in the volume in the title of the chapter by Tobias Matzner and Carsten Ochs, “Sorting Things Out Ethically: Privacy as a Research Issue Beyond the Individual.” Matzner and Ochs rightly point out that strictly individualistic conceptions of privacy have shaped by far the greatest bulk of philosophical and ethical theorizing, at least until relatively recently. Taking on board more relational understandings of selfhood means, however, that our understandings of privacy likewise become more relational, i.e., as implicating both the individual and his/her close-tie relationships. Their account of “Post-Individualist Privacy in Internet Research” points correctly to Helen Nissenbaum’s now central theory of privacy as “contextual integrity” (2010). At the same time, their discussion ← x | xi → is in some ways importantly anticipated in the (Norwegian) National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH, 2006; cf. Ess, 2015; Ess & Fossheim, 2013).
Broadly speaking, responsibility in ethics depends upon agency: I am directly responsible (only) for what I can enact, and not responsible for what I cannot initiate or affect (“ought implies can”). Hence relational selfhood – especially as literally distributed across networked communications – entails a (comparatively) new sense of ethical responsibility, i.e., one that understands that responsibility is distributed across the relationships that shape and define us. So Jonathon Hutchinson, Fiona Martin, and Aim Sinpeng, in their “Chasing ISIS: Network Power, Distributed Ethics and Responsible Social Media Research,” call for “new professional standards, such as the AoIR guidelines, and to advocate for social media research in context – based on an understanding of the limits of distributed responsibility and the different meanings of social visibility for diverse social media agents, human and non-human.” By the same token, in their “How Does It Feel to Be Visualized?: Redistributing Ethics,” David Moats and Jess Perriam further explore a distributed ethics as a way of resolving the challenges evoked by the technologies of networked interconnection, including algorithms, APIs, and related research tools.
Finally, this shift towards more relational understandings of selfhood in Western societies directly intersects the attention to Confucian and Buddhist concepts of relational selfhood taken up here by Soraj Hongladarom, as part of his considerations of how an IRE might function across both Western and Eastern cultural differences. Hongladarom’s chapter thereby highlights an IRE 1.0 theme that will become all the more significant for IRE 3.0. That is: from the earliest days of developing the AoIR 2002 document, we were acutely aware of the ethical challenges further evoked by the internet as a communication technology more or less oblivious to national borders and thereby the diverse national/cultural backgrounds and traditions that deeply shape and inflect our ethical sensibilities. Our awareness and deliberations in these directions were fostered by many committee members – including the venerable Soraj Hongladarom. Here, Hongladarom highlights the importance of ethical pluralism as a primary way of conjoining shared ethical norms and principles with resolute insistence on the importance of sustaining the multiple and diverse approaches and traditions rooted in distinct cultures: as he notes, such ethical pluralism is already in play in IRE 1.0 (Ess & AoIR Ethics Working Committee, 2002, pp. 29–30). At the same time: one of the most striking dimensions of the AoIR 2016 ethics panels was that, for the first time in our history, both the majority of presentations and participants represented countries and culture domains outside the United States. Both presentations and subsequent discussion made clear that more and more countries and cultures are taking up new initiatives and/or expanding extant initiatives in developing an IRE ← xi | xii → within their distinctive national and cultural domains. Manifestly, an IRE 3.0 will become ever more informed by these rapidly expanding initiatives.
More immediately, Hutchinson et al identify an increasingly significant topos that emerges from this relational-distributed focus – namely, that “social media research is often located between corporations and governments, which is often a zone within which an individual researcher has limited power.” As they point out, a primary ethical problem resulting from these sorts of entanglements is how researchers are to maintain rigorous standards of scientific integrity, objectivity, accuracy, and so on, vis-à-vis corporate and government agendas that may run contrary to these standards. That these issues are of growing concern can be seen in their prominence in the 2016 AoIR ethics panels: so Franzke, 2016; Locatelli, 2016; and Schäfer & van Schie, 2016.
EXPANDING THE FRAMEWORKS: FEMINISM, VIRTUE ETHICS, AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERS
In both IRE 1.0 and 2.0, feminist approaches to both methodology and ethics played a significant role (e.g., Ess & AoIR Ethics Working Committee, 2002, ftn. 5, p. 29; Hall, Frederick, & Johns, 2004; see Buchanan & Ess, 2008, 276f. for additional discussion and examples). These feminist orientations and approaches are both represented and importantly extended in this volume by Mary Elizabeth Luka, Mélanie Millette and Jacqueline Wallace. Their “A Feminist Perspective on Ethical Digital Methods” pursues the critical ambition to further “the integrated nature of an ethics of care with feminist values that include respecting diversity, understanding the intention of research as a participant and as a researcher, and paying attention to our responsibility as researchers to do no harm in the communities within which we work, even as we aim to generate potentially transformative engagements.”
In foregrounding a feminist ethics of care, Luka et al add to an increasing number of researchers and, more importantly, research communities that likewise – but only very recently – turn to an ethics of care in order to better come to grips with the ethical challenges evoked by networked technologies and the relationships they facilitate and afford. To be sure, since Sara Ruddick’s inauguration of care ethics (1980), care ethics has been closely interwoven with both feminist ethics and virtue ethics as these emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. Broadly, virtue ethics centered Norbert Wiener’s foundational text ( 1954) in Information and Computing Ethics (ICE); virtue ethics has become increasingly central to both (ICE) in general and especially in recent years (e.g., Vallor, 2016) – as it has also become more prominent in approaches to the design of ICTs, perhaps most notably in the work of Sarah Spiekermann (2016). Indeed, Spiekermann’s ← xii | xiii → implementations of virtue ethics in ICT design underlies nothing less than the critical new initiative of the IEEE, “Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in the Design of Autonomous Systems” (<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html>)
As this IEEE initiative makes clear, what is most striking here is how virtue ethics broadly and care ethics in particular have been taken up and endorsed by our colleagues in software engineering, networked systems design, and related, centrally “technical” fields. As a further example: at the conclusion of a global, two-year project of seeking to discern the ethical frameworks best suited to the technically-intensive field of networked systems research, Bendert Zevenbergen and his colleagues concluded nothing less than that “… virtue ethics should be applied to Internet research and engineering – where the technical persons must fulfil the character traits of the ‘virtuous agent’” (Zevenbergen et al., 2016, p. 31: emphasis added, CME; cf. Zevenbergen, 2016). Similarly, Jackson, Aldrovandi, & Hayes (2015) have endorsed both virtue ethics and ethics of care as primary frameworks for the Slándáil Project (2015). The project exploits big data techniques to harvest and analyze social media data during a natural disaster, for the sake of improving the efficiencies of emergency responders. The project is also cross-cultural, involving institutes and agencies from four (Western) countries – Ireland, Italy, Germany, and the U.K. – and thereby invokes an explicit ethical pluralism. The turn to virtue ethics and care ethics begins with an account of the self as relational. In these ways, Jackson et al. directly draw from IRE 1.0 and 2.0 – and instantiate an application of virtue ethics and care ethics directly parallel to the approach articulated here by Luka et al.
Simply as an indication of the growing influence and importance of feminist ethics, such these examples would be heartening enough. Even more importantly: these examples index a still more profound development and thereby characteristic of IRE 3.0. That is, it is an understatement to say that efforts over the past five decades or so to overcome the profound disciplinary boundaries between applied ethics, on the one hand, and the more technical fields of engineering, computer science, software engineering, and so on, on the other, have been fundamentally challenging on multiple grounds. The recent two decades or so have shown some progress as our more technical colleagues have come to more enthusiastically embrace primary ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism and deontology. But for these colleagues to now go still further and endorse, primarily as a result of their own initiatives and insights, both virtue ethics and care ethics, as clearly feminist, is the disciplinary equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Both within and beyond this volume, then, we could hardly ask for better starting points for IRE 3.0. To be sure, there are additional issues and topics that will require (re)new(ed) attention in this third wave. For example, the relational-distributed focus foregrounds the increasingly central issue of the need to ← xiii | xiv → protect researchers as much as (if not more than) our informants, as their research risks exposing them to the full array of hate speech, threats, and acts that are now routinely directed at them – especially if they are women researching predominantly male hate behaviors (e.g., Massanari, 2016). Another increasingly central issue, brought forward here by Katrin Weller and Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda (“To Share or Not to Share? Ethical Challenges in Sharing Social Media-based Research Data”), concerns the multiple ethical issues confronting researchers who increasingly depend on commercial sources for “big data” – and/or “grey data,” i.e., data that has been leaked and made public by hackers: so Nathaniel Poor’s “The Ethics of Using Hacked Data: Patreon’s Data Hack and Academic Data Standards.” For relational selves, “sharing is caring” – but such sharing is often ethically fraught in ways that remain to be fully explored and at least partially resolved.
Of course, still more issues – and, ideally, possible resolutions – will fill the agenda of our developing IRE 3.0. But as I hope these comments make clear: if anyone needs or wants to know what IRE 3.0 will look like – s/he can do no better but to begin with this volume.
Buchanan, E., & Ess, C. (2008). Internet research ethics: The field and its critical issues. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 273–292). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ess, C. (2015). New selves, new research ethics? In H. Ingierd & H. Fossheim (Eds.), Internet research ethics (pp. 48–76). Oslo: Cappelen Damm. Retrieved from Open Access: http://press.nordicopenaccess.no/index.php/noasp/catalog/book/3
Ess, C. (2016, October 6). Introduction, Internet research ethics roundtable I: New problems, new relationships. Panel presentation, Association of Internet Researchers annual Internet Research conference, Berlin.
Ess, C., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee. (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Retrieved from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
Ess, C., & Fossheim, H. (2013). Personal data: Changing selves, changing privacy expectations. In M. Hildebrandt, K. O’Hara, & M. Waidner (Eds.), Digital enlightenment forum yearbook 2013: The value of personal data (pp. 40–55). Amsterdam: IOS Amsterdam.
Franzke, A. (2016). Big data ethicist: What will the role of the ethicist be in advising governments in the field of big data? (MA thesis in applied ethics). Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/h2g3s2n
Hall, G. J., Frederick, D., & Johns, M. D. (2004). “NEED HELP ASAP!!!”: A feminist communitarian approach to online research ethics. In M. Johns, S. L. Chen, & J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics (pp. 239–252). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Jackson, D., Aldrovandi, C., & Hayes, P. (2015). Ethical framework for a disaster management decision support system which harvests social media data on a large scale. In N. Bellamine Ben Saoud et al. (Eds.), ISCRAM-med 2015 (pp. 167–180), LNBIP 233. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24399-3_15. ← xiv | xv →
Locatelli, E. (2016, October 6). Social media and erasing the boundaries between academic/critical and corporate research. Panel presentation, Association of Internet Researchers annual Internet Research conference, Berlin.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet Research, Version 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Retrieved from www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
Massanari, A. (2016, October 6). The changing nature of research in the age of #Gamergate. Panel presentation, Association of Internet Researchers annual Internet Research conference, Berlin.
NESH (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities). (2006). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi [Research ethics guidelines for social sciences, the humanities, law and theology]. Retrieved from http://www.etikkom.no/Documents/Publikasjoner-som-PDF/Forskningsetiske%20retningslinjer%20for%20samfunnsvitenskap,%20humaniora,%20juss%20og%20teologi%20%282006%29.pdf
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context. Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ruddick, S. (1980). Maternal thinking. Feminist Studies, 6(2), 342–367.
Schäfer, M. T., & van Schie, G. (2016, October 6). Big data and negotiating the blurring boundaries between academic, corporate, and public institution research. Panel presentation, Association of Internet Researchers annual Internet Research conference, Berlin.
Spiekermann, S. (2016). Ethical IT innovation: A value-based system design approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- XXXIV, 312
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (MOBI)
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- ISBN (Softcover)
- Publication date
- 2017 (September)
- New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien, 2017. XXXIV, 312 pp.