ETHICAL CONSIDERTIONS IN USAGE OF TWITTER DATA

Ivan Blazhevski

doi:10.35120/sciencej010127i

Authors

Ivan Blazhevski Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej010127i

Keywords:

ethics, research, data, social media

Abstract

Internet-based data, especially the ability to extract and analyze data from social media such as Twitter, is becoming more prevalent in providing data in empirical research. The public nature of Twitter and its more open access to data, compared to other social media, as well as the approval to use that data in accordance with the Twitter’s Terms of Service were considered a sufficiently ethical justification for the use of Twitter data in research. This tendency to collect data from the Internet, that is from social networks, in social research, has prompted a number of scientific societies to develop ethical guidelines for Internet research.
This paper provides an overview of the recommendations contained in the ethical guidelines, compared to the requirements set out in the Twitter’s Terms of Service. Additionally, research on social media users’ perceptions regarding the use and publication of their data is analyzed. The tendency to apply the principle of situational ethics is evident in the ethical guidelines, starting from the existing collision between the established ethical principles for scientific research and the privacy policy on Twitter. However, there is a lack of consensus among ethical guidelines in determining the appropriate way of collecting, processing and presenting data in research and scientific publications. Also, in research on the perception of social media users, there is a significantly lower concern about the use of data by Twitter users, compared to users of other platforms. But in spite of that, the prevailing opinion among them is the need for prior consent for the use of their data in research and scientific publications, with a special emphasis on the request for anonymity. Given the complexity of this debate, which ultimately aims to preserve the academic integrity of research, the conclusion points to the need to summarize the various ethical aspects in establishing a methodological approach in studies that use Twitter data.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Beninger, K., Fry, A., Jago, N., Lepps, H., Nass, L. & Silvester, H. (2014). Research using Social Media; Users’ Views. NatCen Social Research Retrieved from: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/research-using-social-media-users-views (October 30, 2022)

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford University Press

Dann, S. (2015). Twitter Data Acquisition and Analysis: Methodology and Best Practice. In Burhalter, J. & Wood, N. (eds) Maximizing Commerce and Marketing Strategies through Micro-Blogging. Business Science Reference DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8408-9.ch012

Developer policy [website]. (2022, August 27) Content redistribution Retrieved from: https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/policy

Diener, E. & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Ess, C. & the AoIR ethics working committee (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee. Retrieved from: https://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf (September 12, 2022)

Evans, H., Ginnis, S. & Bartlett, J. (2015). #SocialEthics: A Guide to Embedding Ethics in Social Media Research. London: IpsosMORI Retrieved from: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/migrations/en-uk/files/Assets/Docs/Publications/im-demos-social-ethics-in-social-media-research-summary.pdf (September 10, 2022)

Eysenbach, G. & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323 (7321) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103

franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C. & the Association of Internet Researchers (2020). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Retrieved from: https://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf (September 12, 2022)

Jouhki, J., Lauk, E., Penttinen, M., Rohila, J., Sormanen, N. & Uskali, T. (2015). Social media personhood as a challenge to research ethics: Exploring the case of the Facebook experiment. Social Media Research Symposium “Successed and failures in studying social media: issues of methods and ethics”, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Markham, A. (2006). Ethic as Method, Method as Ethic: A Case for Reflexivity in Qualitative ICT Research. Journal of Information Ethics 15 (2) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.15.2.37

Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from: https://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (September 12, 2022)

Markham, A. (2015). Produsing ethics [for the digital near future]. In Lind, R. (Ed.). Produsing theory in a digital world 2.0: The intersection of audiences and production in contemporary theory Vol.2. Peter Lang Inc.

Pace, L. A. & Livingston, M. M. (2005). Protecting Human Subjects in Internet Research, International Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol.10

Samuel, G. & Buchanan, E. (2020). Ethical Issues in Social Media Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15(1-2) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619901215

Statista.com [website]. (2022, May 20) Worldwide digital population as of April 2022, Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/

Statista.com [website]. (2022, May 20) Social media: global penetration rate 2022, Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/269615/social-network-penetration-by-region/

Statista.com [website]. (2022, May 20) Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Twitter Terms of Service [website]. (2022, August 25) Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/en/tos

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Office for Human Research Protections. (2022, October 03). Code of Federal Regulations (Pre-2018 Requirements). Retrieved from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/nprmhome/index.html

Webb, H., Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Stahl, B.C., Rana, O., Burnap, P., Housley, W., Edwards, A. & Williams, M. (2017). The Ethical Challenges of Publishing Twitter Data for Research Dissemination. ACM Web Science DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3091478.3091489

Whiteman, N. (2012). Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research.Springer DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1827-6

Williams, M.L., Burnap, P. & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an Ethical Framework for Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation. Sociology, 51(6) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517708140

Woodfield, K. & Iphofen, R. (2018). The Ethics of Online Research. In Woodfield, K. (ed.), The Ethics of Online Research (Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, Vol. 2). Emerald Publishing Limited DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-6018201802

Zimmer, M. & Proferes, N. (2012). Privacy on Twitter, Twitter on Privacy. In Weller et al. (Eds.) Twitter and Society. Peter Lang Publishing