Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research on Internet Communities Paper

User Generated

znk10

Writing

Description

 Identify three ethical issues that might arise in the conduct of the research present in the cases. For each, explain why it is an ethical issue and how it may pose a challenge in conducting the research.  Select one of the issues you identified and describe how you would address this issue to comply with both legal and professional standards of practice. Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your short paper must be submitted as a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Research Ethics Review http://rea.sagepub.com/ Ethical Issues in Using the Internet in Research: Commentary Paula McGee Research Ethics 2008 4: 117 DOI: 10.1177/174701610800400307 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rea.sagepub.com/content/4/3/117 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: The Association of Research Ethics Committees Additional services and information for Research Ethics Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://rea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://rea.sagepub.com/content/4/3/117.refs.html >> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2008 What is This? Downloaded from rea.sagepub.com by guest on October 31, 2013 Research Ethics Review (2008) Vol 4, No 3, 117–119 © The Association of Research Ethics Committees 2008 Case study 11 Ethical issues in using the internet in research: commentary PAULA McGEE Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK This study appeared in full in the last issue of Research Ethics Review (2008; 4 (2): 68). MJ’s research focuses on those patients with brain damage following trauma such as a road traffic accident. She wants to find out about their experiences of daily life once they have been discharged from hospital. She plans to use a phenomenological approach in which each participant will be asked to take part in a series of in-depth interviews, via email, over a period of about two years. These interviews will allow her to compare participants’ experiences in different parts of the UK. MJ has a research partner in Auckland; the two of them are planning a similar series of interviews in New Zealand to allow for comparison between participants’ experiences in the two countries. Questions for discussion What ethical issues might arise in the conduct of this research? MJ’s research reflects a growing trend in the use of electronic means to gather and record data. This is particularly the case where studies focus on the needs and experiences of people who find other research methods too demanding. Some previous studies on adults who have survived traumatic brain injuries illustrate this point. Egan et al. [1], for example, conducted email interviews in Australia with adults who had survived traumatic brain injuries. When asked their opinion of this method of data collection, participants ‘overwhelmingly reported that they preferred email interviewing to a face-to-face encounter’. Reasons for this preference included difficulties in coping with the multiple stimuli generated in face-toface meetings in which verbal and non-verbal signals have to be de-coded alongside whatever is being said, the need for frequent breaks because of pain or other physical problems, and limited energy levels. Using email to collect data allowed participants to take part in their own time, as and when they felt able, and take breaks whenever they liked. Thus, participation can be combined with other activities such as watching television or minding children [2]. Participants may be widely dispersed over large geographical areas and still be able to take part; the researcher will not have to make appointments or bear the costs of travel [1,3,4]. The lack of face-toface communication can have a disinhibiting effect, enabling participants to talk frankly about issues that they might otherwise feel too embarrassed or unable to discuss [2]. Thus participants who have survived traumatic brain injury, may feel able to talk freely, in emails, about those aspects of their lives which those immediately involved in caring for them do not wish or know how to address. However, using email can also create a number of challenges for MJ. First is the issue of access and skills. Whilst email and the internet have the potential to enable the recruitment of participants from many different social and geographical settings they also may exclude the poor, elderly and, unemployed [3]. MJ ought to consider whether the people she plans to study have access to email and the skills required to take part in the study. Egan et al. [5,6] developed a training programme for survivors of traumatic brain injury. All those involved had cognitive-linguistic impairments but proved able to learn. If they are to take part in research, participants need to be literate in the language used in the project, able to switch on a computer, and know how to use email. Training may help to make the project more attractive to potential recruits and be seen, by them, as one of the benefits of taking part. Thus MJ could say, in her information for participants, that training in basic computer skills and in using email will be given as part of the project. However, training is only useful if it is backed up by good support so that participants know whom to turn to if difficulties arise. Researchers should be computer literate and familiar with the procedures they are asking participants to use. They should either able to cope with electronic problems themselves or have good technical support in place. Second, MJ will need to consider the ethical principle of respect for autonomy [7]. Potential participants should be regarded in the same light as anyone else invited to take part in research. Participant information is just as important, although MJ can explore the possibility of different modes of presentation such as podcasts, rather than text, providing that these 118 Paula McGee meet research governance standards. Consent could also be recorded verbally and stored in a sound file unless a written signature is deemed essential and can be obtained [8]. What matters is that potential participants receive appropriate information and are able to make informed decisions about whether they wish to take part. However, extra care may be needed in obtaining consent from those who have survived brain injuries. Egan et al. [1] asked each potential participant to nominate a support person who could go through the information with them and verify their understanding. The involvement of the support person continued throughout the project providing help if the participant became distressed and acting as a point of contact for the researcher if she became worried about an individual. Consent was also obtained from legal guardians, where these had been appointed. On paper, this approach seemed very reasonable but nine people, that is to say half, of the participants deeply resented it. They argued that they were highly dependent on others for every aspect of their lives and their involvement in the project provided a space in which they could deal with something by themselves; the project offered one small step towards independence. Clearly the views of these participants did not match those of researchers and REC members who tend to regard those with brain injuries as ´vulnerable`. Egan et al’s research [1] demonstrates that ideas about vulnerability may be experienced as patronising and perhaps unhelpful by those they are intended to protect. One solution to this issue may be found in consulting directly with people who have survived brain injury and trying to elicit their views on the best approaches to use. Third, and allied to respect for autonomy, is the ethical principle of non-maleficience, the avoidance of harm [7]. Data collection is likely to remind participants of very painful experiences: the events surrounding their trauma, being in hospital, fear of death, changes in family relationships and coping with, what for some, may be a profound disability and loss of independence. Such recollections can be difficult for both the participant and the researcher. The researcher has a responsibility to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to help participants cope with the aftermath of the interview. Providing appropriate help requires careful thought, the ability to anticipate some of the problems that may arise and a willingness to try different approaches. For example, a debriefing programme might be developed in the form of a podcast that could be sent either when the interview is complete or at any point at which the researcher becomes concerned about a participant’s well being [8]. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to identify and recruit help from local sources of support. Egan et al. [1] were correct in principle to appoint local support people but more consideration was needed to clarify their role. Much depends on the individual situation; the researcher ‘must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the distressing information demands a response, if a response or intervention is indeed a possibility’ [9]. From the researcher’s perspective, coping with distressing interview content can be very stressful and disturbing whether it arises in email or face-to-face encounters. MJ may need to arrange some debriefing support, especially if she has not previously undertaken work with adults who have acquired serious disabilities. Concerns about distressing content lead into considerations of privacy and the ways in which this may be compromised by the research. Participants will need to be assured that the information they provide will be treated in confidence and that they will not be identified in any reports or documents. This may be particularly important for those seeking legal redress or who are engaged in other forms of litigation, such as access to their children, in which their current mental state and abilities may be subject to assessment. Those attempting to rebuild their lives may also not want others to know about their thoughts and experiences. Finally, participants may want to express criticisms of services, their families and carers but, at the same time, wish to avoid jeopardising relationships with people on whom they depend. MJ will need to establish the level of assistance that individuals require in order to contribute their views and experiences. In some instances, additional software or hardware may be necessary to enable individuals to use a computer independently. What role might the REC play in enabling MJ to address these ethical concerns? The impact of email and the internet is still very new and, consequently, there are as yet no definitive guidelines for researchers [8]. Constructive dialogue between researchers and REC members is, therefore, essential in developing good practice and ethicallysound research. REC members may feel rather overwhelmed by the technicalities of conducting a project of this kind and worry that they are not sufficiently computer-literate to give an opinion. Such feelings are reasonable but not altogether well-founded. The REC members’ central focus is still the rights and well being of the participants and the ethical issues inherent in the design. Participant information remains crucial; it is not the format that matters but the content. Free and informed consent is essential; how it is recorded, providing that some permanent format is used, matters less. Thus, from the REC members’ perspective, constructive dialogue is rooted in the principles of research governance which remain the same, irrespective of the research design. In this instance, these principles are to be applied flexibly and creatively. Ethical issues in using the internet in research: commentary REC members will need to have open minds, and a willingness to engage with novel approaches whilst bearing in mind that their advice and opinion will carry weight for the future as a contribution towards consensus on good practice in this type of research. What concerns might the REC have about data management in this proposed research? Data management will, in many respects, differ little from that in other research projects. The nature of the data to be collected, how they will be stored, who will have access to them, how they will be used and destroyed are routine topics for consideration in any ethical review. The difference here is that MJ is planning to do a series of interviews in New Zealand and then compare the outcomes with those conducted in the UK. It is not clear whether this work is to run concurrently with the UK project or as a later extension but the MJ her colleague will need to follow the procedures for research governance that pertain in New Zealand. Data collection and management in the UK is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998. Sharing data between researchers within the European Union is fairly safe in that all member states have to comply with regulations governing the processing and movement of data [10](Directive 95/46/EC). New Zealand has had legislation about privacy since 1993 and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner [11] regularly produces guidance on how data should be handled. In both countries REC members may wish to satisfy themselves about the 119 ways in which data will be shared via the internet and ensure that adequate arrangements are in place. References 1. Egan J, Chenoweth L, McAuliffe D. Email-facilitated qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: a new accessible method. Brain Injury 2006; 20(12): 1283-94. 2. Rodham K, Gavin J. The ethics of using the internet to collect qualitative research data. Res Ethics Rev 2006; 2(3): 92-7. 3. Mann C, Stewart F. Internet communication and qualitative research. London: Sage 2000. 4. McAuliffe D. Challenging methodological traditions: research by email. The Qualitative Report 2003; 8(1): 57-69. 5. Egan J, Worrall L, Oxenham D. Accessible internet training package helps people with aphasia cross the digital divide. Aphasiology 2004; 18(3): 265-280. 6. Egan J, Worrall L, Oxenham D. An internet training intervention for people with traumatic brain injury - barriers and outcomes. Brain Injury 2005; 19(8): 555-568. 7. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001. 8. Haigh C, Jones N. Techno-research and cyber-ethics: challenges for ethics committees. Res Ethics Rev 2007; 3(3): 80-3. 9. Gryner A. The ethics of internet usage in health and personal narratives. Social Research Update; issue 49, Spring 2007. Department of Sociology, University of Surrey Available at http://sru.soc.surre.ac.uk/SRU49.html 10. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data available at http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirective/EU_Directive_.html 11. Office of the Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand. At http://www.privacy.org.nz. The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate. Information in practice Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities Gunther Eysenbach, James E Till The internet is the most comprehensive electronic archive of written material representing our world and peoples’ opinions, concerns, and desires. Physicians who surf the internet for the first time are often stunned by what they learn on websites set up by lay people or patient self support communities. Material on these venues can be a rich source for researchers interested in understanding the experiences and views of people and patients. Qualitative analysis of material published and communicated on the internet can serve to systematise and codify needs, values, concerns, and preferences of consumers and professionals relevant to health and health care. While the internet makes people’s interactions uniquely accessible for researchers and erases boundaries of time and distance, such research raises new issues in research ethics, particularly concerning informed consent and privacy of research subjects, as the borders between public and private spaces are sometimes blurred. Internet communities Internet communities provide a way for a group of peers to communicate with each other. They include discussion boards on websites, mailing lists, chat rooms, or newsgroups. Examples of health related mailing lists can easily be found by inserting a key word such as “cancer” in the search box at the Topica website (www. topica.com/). One example is the Breast Cancer Mailing List, based at Memorial University in Newfoundland (www.bclist.org), which provides a forum for those seeking peer support and information, with an emphasis on information on treatment and disease, practical information (such as relevant online resources), personal experiences, and emotional support. Qualitative research on the internet Qualitative research seeks “to acknowledge the existence of and study the interplay of multiple views and voices—including, importantly, lay voices.”1 Internet postings are accessible for qualitative research of these voices—for example, to determine information needs and preferences of consumers or to investigate how health related information can best be converted into knowledge and disseminated widely.2 Three different types of internet based research methods can be distinguished.3 One is passive analysis, such as studies of information patterns on websites or BMJ VOLUME 323 10 NOVEMBER 2001 bmj.com Summary points Internet communities (such as mailing lists, chat rooms, newsgroups, or discussion boards on websites) are rich sources of qualitative data for health researchers Qualitative analysis of internet postings may help to systematise and codify needs, values, and preferences of consumers and professionals relevant to health and health care Internet based research raises several ethical questions, especially pertaining to privacy and informed consent Researchers and institutional review boards must primarily consider whether research is intrusive and has potential for harm, whether the venue is perceived as “private” or “public” space, how confidentiality can be protected, and whether and how informed consent should be obtained Unit for Cybermedicine and eHealth, Department of Clinical Social Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Bergheimer Str 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany Gunther Eysenbach senior researcher Joint Center for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada James E Till professor emeritus Correspondence to: G Eysenbach ey@yi.com BMJ 2001;323:1103–5 interactions on discussion groups without the researchers actually involving themselves. Examples include the study of helping mechanisms and content of online self help groups for colorectal cancer,4 breast cancer,5 Alzheimer’s disease,6 and eating disorders.7 The second type of online research is through active analysis, in which researchers participate in communications—for example, to determine the accuracy of responses to healthcare questions on the Usenet.8 In the third type researchers identify themselves as such and gather information in the form of online semistructured interviews, online focus groups, or internet based surveys or use the internet to recruit participants for “traditional” research. Internet communities’ members do not expect to be research subjects There is increasing evidence that researchers posting or “lurking” on such communities may be perceived as intruders and may damage the communities. King quotes a group member who, realising that the community had been monitored by a researcher, 1103 Information in practice retreated from a mailing list with the remark: “When I joined this, I thought it would be a support group, not a fishbowl for a bunch of guinea pigs. I certainly don’t feel at this point that it is a safe environment, as a support group is supposed to be, and I will not open myself up to be dissected by students or scientists.”9 One subscriber to the Breast Cancer Mailing List responded to one of the frequent requests from researchers interested in obtaining insights into patients’ personal experiences with breast cancer: “Why can’t researchers do it the ‘hard way’ as they used to . . . and leave us alone on the Breast-Cancer list?”10 Sharf reported that among 14 people from a mailing list contacted to obtain informed consent, one woman was “somewhat hostile, assuming that [the researcher] had behaved voyeuristically, taking advantages of people in distress” and that “the idea of using the conversations as data had not occurred to many members.”11 We searched the Dejanews archive (http:// groups.google.com/) to find comments of newsgroup participants responding to researchers’ requests. Entering the search terms “research survey project health” identified 85 messages from researchers. By following the message threads, we could find newsgroup participants’ reactions, which were often negative. Among the concerns expressed was that often “the researcher isn’t familiar with newsgroup culture— problems akin to those occasionally experienced by anthropologists when they try to interpret the behaviour of cultures they really don’t understand. And on the rare occasions when I’ve seen someone who’s part of that culture attempt to study the group he/she is part of, it resulted in a rippling sense of resentment and betrayal among those who find such things underhanded.” Public spaces or private rooms? Informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality are basic ethical tenets of scientific research on people.12–14 To determine whether informed consent is required, you first have to decide whether postings on an internet community are “private” or “public” communications. This distinction is important because informed consent is required “when behaviour of research participants occurs in a private context where an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or reporting is taking place.”15 On the other hand, researchers “may conduct research in public places or use publicly available information about individuals (such as naturalistic observations in public places and analysis of public records or archival research) without obtaining consent,”15 and “research involving observation of participants in, for example, political rallies, demonstrations or public meetings should not require Research Ethics Board review since it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility.”16 Although publication on the internet may have parallels to publishing a letter in a newspaper or saying something in a public meeting, there are important psychological differences, and people participating in an online discussion group cannot always be assumed to be “seeking public visibility.” On the internet the dichotomy of private and public sometimes may not be appropriate, and communities may lie in between. Several measures can be used to estimate the perceived level of privacy. Firstly, if a subscription or 1104 some form of registration is required to gain access to a discussion group then most of the subscribers are likely to regard the group as a “private place” in cyberspace.17 Secondly, the number of (real or assumed) users of a community determines how “public” the space is perceived to be: a posting to a mailing list with 10 subscribers is different from a posting to a mailing list with 100 or 1000 subscribers. However, as messages sent to mailing lists are sometimes also stored in web accessible archives, the actual number of people accessing messages may be greater than assumed and may be impossible to determine. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the perception of privacy depends on an individual group’s norms and codes, target audience, and aim, often laid down in the “frequently asked questions” or information files of an internet community. For example, SickKids is a discussion list for children who are ill. The information file about the mailing list states that “adults will NOT be permitted to participate on this list as its purpose is to provide kids with their own personal place to share.” It seems clear that children who send messages to this list are unlikely to be “seeking public visibility.” Similarly, a virtual self support group of sexual abuse survivors was reported to have a group policy explicitly discouraging interested professionals who were not sexual abuse survivors from joining the group,9 yet a decision was made to analyse postings without obtaining prior or retrospective consent from the group members.18 Can informed consent be waived? If it is thought that a community may be perceived to be private, the next question is whether informed consent for passively analysing the postings is needed or whether this requirement can be waived. In clinical studies non-intrusive research such as retrospective use of existing medical records may be conducted ethically without the express consent of the individual subjects if the material is anonymised at the earliest possible stage, if there is no inconvenience or hazard to the subjects, and if the institutional review board has reviewed and agreed the research protocol.19 Similar considerations may be applied to passive analysis of messages on mailing lists. When considering potential hazards to group participants or the community as a whole, privacy issues are especially important, and it should be considered whether publication of the results (especially when mentioning the group name) may negatively affect group members or harm the community as a whole. Much will depend on what data will be collected and how they will be reported, how vulnerable the community or sensitive the topic is, and the degree to which the researcher interacts with group members. How can informed consent be obtained? If a researcher and the institutional review board feel that obtaining informed consent is necessary, how should it be obtained? For mailing lists, there are basically two possibilities. The first is to send an email to the mailing list describing the research prospectively and giving participants the opportunity to withdraw from the list. The second is to ask retrospectively each person whose postings have been or will be used, giving them the possibility to withdraw themselves from the analysis. BMJ VOLUME 323 10 NOVEMBER 2001 bmj.com Information in practice The first approach is intrusive and can be done only for those mailing lists or chat rooms where the entry of new members can be monitored, so that they can be briefed on the ongoing research. There is also a considerable danger that announcing the research may influence future communication patterns or provoke many members to opt out (which may damage the community). The second approach is much less intrusive, can ensure that researchers correctly interpret statements of participants, and may even avoid false stories of personal illness being analysed.20 However, this approach is cumbersome and time consuming,11 especially as email addresses may be no longer valid and many participants may not respond. Obtaining permission from the “list owner” (the individual responsible for maintaining the mailing list) or moderator (if any) is rarely an adequate way for a researcher to obtain “community consent,” as neither can properly claim to speak for all of the participants in a mailing list. However, they may know the online community better than the researcher, so they can be a useful starting point to find out what the group norms are and what would be the best way of obtaining informed consent from group members. Privacy and confidentiality The internet holds various pitfalls for researchers, who can easily and unintentionally violate the privacy of individuals. For example, by quoting the exact words of a newsgroup participant, a researcher may breach the participant’s confidentiality even if the researcher removes any personal information. This is because powerful search engines such as Google can index newsgroups (groups.google.com), so that the original message, including the email address of the sender, could be retrieved by anybody using the direct quote as a query. Participants should therefore always be approached to give their explicit consent to be quoted verbatim and should be made aware that their email address might be identifiable. Another reason why researchers should contact individuals before quoting them is that the author of the posting may not be seeking privacy but publicity, so that extensive quotes without attribution may be considered a misuse of another person’s intellectual property. Conclusions Intrusiveness—Discuss to what degree the research conducted is intrusive (“passive” analysis of internet postings versus active involvement in the community by participating in communications) Perceived privacy—Discuss (preferably in consultation with members of the community) the level of perceived privacy of the community (Is it a closed group requiring registration? What is the membership size? What are the group norms?) Vulnerability—Discuss how vulnerable the community is: for example, a mailing list for victims of sexual abuse or AIDS patients will be a highly vulnerable community Potential harm—As a result of the above considerations, discuss whether the intrusion of the researcher or publication of results has the potential to harm individuals or the community as a whole Informed consent—Discuss whether informed consent is required or can be waived (If it is required how will it be obtained?) Confidentiality—How can the anonymity of participants be protected (if verbatim quotes are given originators can be identified easily using search engines, thus informed consent is always required) Intellectual property rights—In some cases, participants may not seek anonymity, but publicity, so that use of postings without attribution may not be appropriate *Researchers should explicitly address these issues in their research protocol All authors of the quotes from newsgroups and mailing lists have given their consent to quote them. Contributors: Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Funding: JET’s contributions were partially supported by an award from the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Competing interests: None declared. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The main problem with using internet communities for research is that researchers may have difficulty separating spaces regarded as private from spaces regarded as public. We recommend that researchers and institutional review boards should carefully consider these points when developing and reviewing research protocols and should involve members of the group they want to study in these considerations (see box). Our examples show how complex such considerations may be, being further compounded by our lack of knowledge about the psychological aspects of cyberspace, the risks and benefits of internet based research, and the technical complexities involved. Best practice guidelines for internet research and compilations of case studies, from the perspective of both researchers and internet communities, are needed. BMJ VOLUME 323 Proposed considerations for researchers and institutional review boards before studying an internet community* 10 NOVEMBER 2001 bmj.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Barbour RS. The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’ for clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2000;6:155-63. Eysenbach G. Consumer health informatics. BMJ 2000;320:1713-6. Eysenbach G, Wyatt JC. Facilitating research via the internet. In: McKenzie B, ed. Internet and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press (in press). Klemm P, Reppert K, Visich L. A nontraditional cancer support group. The internet. Comput Nurs 1998;16:31-6. Sharf BF. Communicating breast cancer on-line: support and empowerment on the internet. Women Health 1997;26(1):65-84. White MH, Dorman SM. Online support for caregivers. Analysis of an internet Alzheimer mailgroup. Comput Nurs 2000;18:168-76. Winzelberg AJ. The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with eating disorders. Comput Human Behav 1997;13:393-407. Seaboldt JA, Kuiper R. Comparison of information obtained from a Usenet newsgroup and from drug information centers. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997;54:1732-5. King SA. Researching internet communities: proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society 1996;12(2):119-28. Till JE. Research ethics: internet-based research. Part 1: On-line survey research. http://members.tripod.com/∼ca916/index-3.html. (updated 18 Nov 1997, accessed 20 Jan 2001). Sharf BF. Beyond netiquette. The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet. In: Jones S, ed. Doing internet research. London: Sage; 1999:243-56. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. www.wma.net/e/policy/17c_e.html (update 7 Oct 2000, accessed 20 Jan 2001). Jones RA. The ethics of research in cyberspace. Internet Res 1994;4(3):30-5. Frankel MS, Siang S. 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, 1999. American Sociological Association. American Sociological Association code of ethics. www.asanet.org/members/ecoderev.html (updated 1 Aug 1999, accessed 12 Jan 2001). Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. www. sshrc.ca/english/programinfo/policies/Index.htm (updated 14 Sep 2001). Mayer M, Till JE. The internet: a modern Pandora’s box? Qual Life Res 1996;5:568-71. Finn J. An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. Health Soc Work 1999;24:220-31. 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. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1999;33:264-6. Feldman MD. Munchausen by internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the internet. South Med J 2000;93:669-72. (Accepted 4 October 2001) 1105
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: ETHICAL ISSUES
1

Ethical Issues
Name
Institution
Course
Date

ETHICAL ISSUES
2

Ethical Issues in Research
According to Martin (2015), ethical issues refers to situations or problems which require
an individual to make a choice between alternatives or options that must be evaluated as either
wrong (unethical) or right (ethical). Ethics is applied in research in order to judge the conduct or
behaviors of the researcher involved in a particular study as well as the consequences of the
research being carried out. The main function of ethics is to guide people in decision making in
situations where they are faced with moral questions of whether a given action is right or wrong
(Martin, 2015). It is worth noting that internet research refers to the practice of gathering data for
a study either through the use of information already available on the World Wide Web or the
use of internet communities which provide a channel for communication between peer groups
(Eysenbach & Till, 2001). As a researcher is carrying out internet research, ther...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags