As I attempt to draw connections across the readings I’m
struck by two themes: the use of technology for data collection and the use of
technology for reflexivity. Since I haven’t had a chance to read the Watt
(2007) article and I want to spend some time with it I’m going to focus on the
first theme for this post. I might describe the selected readings as a bridge
between the historical background of technology in qualitative research and the
practical application of current technology to research methodologies, in
particular the research aspects of data collection.
These readings brought up several questions about the process
and application of being an observer/participant in online data collection some
practical some ethical. So here goes a series of interrelated musings and
questions.
In thinking about the application of technology in data
collection Eynon, Fry and Schroeder (2008) address the need for ethics in
online social science methods in particular how researchers should position
themselves within the study as an observer or participant. Of particular
interest to me was the opportunity for anonymity, which is greater in on-line
research, but presents itself with significant ethical concerns. Hardy (2011)
comes to the conclusion that “lurking” is inappropriate and that the best form
of practice is for a researcher to “establish a ‘true’ user profile” (p. 119). I
agree with this need, but was surprised she didn’t mention the option of
creating a researcher profile. I maintain personal profiles on several social networking
sites and would feel very uncomfortable linking this profile to a research
study, particularly since my research concerns minors. (Not that I post anything
inappropriate, but I have friends and am dreading the throw back Thursday that
exposes some sort of stupidity from undergrad.)
Wakeford and Cohen (2008) stated that anthropologists and sociologists
have been hesitant to engage in online data collection and reflection. I find
this interesting, especially since technology and the creation of an online
persona has become so prevalent in many parts of today’s society. It is hard to
find someone from the past two generations who does not have at least a simple
online presence. With these personas becoming such an integral component of our
lives it seems that this area would be a critical component to understanding
the larger picture of human behavior and interaction. I wonder if the reason
for hesitation has to do with concerns over the position of the researcher in
the study and of course protecting participants’ identities?
Wakeford and Cohen (2008) detail some of the constraints
surrounding online blogging as part of the research process including using
blogs as a type of field notes that can be shared with co-researchers, mentors
and in some cases the participants themselves. The authors discuss the concerns
over protecting sensitive data including participant identities. One of the
constraints I feel they may have overlooked is the effect of the blog on the
participants, if they are reading the researcher’s thoughts. My research has
been mostly with secondary school students and there is a trend for them to
want to please the researcher – if participants had access to a blog about the
research process I’m afraid it might alter the behaviors of certain
participants.
Enyon, et. al. (2008) list the potential harms
that can occur through online research. I was particularly interested in the discussion
of “harm to the researchers” (p. 28). In an anonymous environment, there is the
chance that a research might come across illegal or possibly harmful activity.
I wonder if this might be more likely since there is the promise of anonymity
on the part of the participant and participants might be more daring in
releasing details? I’m also wondering about the reporting procedures. I’m
guessing it is written into the IRB. It makes me think of the scene from the movie Kinsey where he overlooks the obvious child abuse being discussed by a participant for the sake of his data. I could see unethical researcher doing something similar and claiming that due to the anonymous nature of the data collection there was no way to report the data - this might be particularly true when analyzing blogs or chat groups when consent is not deemed necessary.
References:
Hardey, M.
(2011). Ubiquitous connectivity: User-generated data and the role of the
researcher. In Hesse-Biber, S. (Ed.) The Handbook
of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (pp. 111-130). Oxford
University Press.
Ah, these questions have me thinking. I really appreciated the concern around participants being privy to researcher journals wholly. I have never taken this approach. While I blog consistently (always password protected for research projects), I do not invite participants to read my reflexivity blog -- the place where I share how my identity(ies) shape my understandings and lay out my biases, etc. This is a place for me to unpack my own responses to the data. At times, I have invited colleagues involved in (or distant to) a project to read this posts, asking critical questions. However, I've used this as a personal space. I think about these choices often. What am I losing? What am I gaining? What is behind this decision?
ReplyDelete