Researchers using online ethnographic methods to study military communities must employ higher standards of ethical practice. Military populations may face significant risk if reidentified in research. These requirements are especially salient for online data collection. This review questions how and to what extent military online ethnographers are addressing ethics considerations. We charted evidence from seven military studies using an online ethnographic method. Findings reveal that most online military ethnographers did not utilize sufficient ethical safeguards in their studies. Additionally, they did not document or transparently disclose the ethical steps they may have taken. This study argues implementing ethical safeguards is especially important for protecting vulnerable military populations. We present a strategy for evaluating ethics practices in online ethnographic research and provide best practices for military online ethnographers.
AlsarkalY.ZhangN.ZhouY. (2015). Linking virtual and real-world identities. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (I.S.I.) (pp. 49-54). IEEE.
2.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000011961vbb/Cb
BassettE. H.O’RiordanK. (2002). Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021319125207
5.
BlakelyG.HennessyC.ChungM.SkirtonH. (2014). Adaption and adjustment of military spouses to overseas postings: An online forum study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 16(3), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12122
6.
Bracken-RocheD.BellE.MacdonaldM. E.RacineE. (2017). The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: An in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6
7.
BramerW. M.de JongeG. B.RethlefsenM. L.MastF.KleijnenJ. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to developing literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Assocation: JMLA, 106(4), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283
8.
BuglassS. L.BinderJ. F.BettsL. R.UnderwoodJ. D. (2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.055
9.
ConwayM. (2014). Ethical issues in using twitter for public health surveillance and research: Developing a taxonomy of ethical concepts from the research literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(12), e290-e290. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3617
10.
CostelloL.McDermottM.WallaceR. (2017). Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647
11.
CoulsonA. B.MacLarenA. C.McKenzieS.O’GormanK. D. (2014). Hospitality codes and social exchange theory: The Pashtunwali and tourism in Afghanistan. Tourism Management, 45, 134-141. https//doi.org/10/1016/j.tourman.2014.03.019
12.
CrawfordS.HokkeS.NicholsonJ. M.ZionL.LuckeJ.KeyzerP.HackworthN. (2019). It's not black and white: Public health researchers' and ethics committees' perceptions of engaging research participants online. Internet Research, 29(1), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-07-2017-0278
FinnJ.DillonC. (2007). Using personal ads and online self-help groups to teach content analysis in a research methods course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(1-2), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v27n01_10
16.
Gal-EzerM. (2012). From ‘silent generation’ to cyber-psy-site, story and history: The 14th tank brigade battles on public collective memory and official recognition. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2012-2-4
17.
Gal-EzerM. (2014). Forty years: From ‘silent generation’ to ‘Homeland’ awards. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 11(2), 274-319. https://www.participations.org/
18.
General Data Protection Regulation. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 119, 04/05/2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2016%3A119%3ATOC
19.
HalfordS. (2017). The ethical disruptions of social media data: Tales from the field. In WoodfieldK. (Ed.), The ethics of online research (advances in research ethics and integrity, Vol. 2) (pp. 13-25). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820800000002001
20.
HallL. K. (2016). Counseling military families. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
21.
HalvorsonA. (2010). Understanding the military: The institution, the culture, and the people. (White paper). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) Partners for Recovery Initiative.https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/military_white_paper_final.pdf
22.
HighfillM. C. (2019). Exploring reactions of stakeholders to military-connected spouse abuse disclosure: An online observational approach (Publication No. 27629429) [Masters thesis, University of Texas at Arlington]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
23.
HudsonJ. M.BruckmanA. (2004). "Go away": Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. The Information Society, 20(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/1080/01972240490423030
24.
Huh-YooJ.RaderE. (2020). It's the wild, wild west: Lessons learned from I.R.B. Members’ risk perceptions toward digital research data. Proceedings of the A.C.M. on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392868
JohnsonA.LawsonC.AmesK. (2018). Are you really one of us?: Exploring ethics, risk and insider research in a private Facebook community. In SMSociety 18 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media & Society (pp. 102-109). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3217804.3217902
27.
KozinetsR. V. (1997). “I want to believe”: A netnography of the X-Philes’ subculture of consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 470-475. https://www.acrwebsite.org
28.
KozinetsR. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage.
29.
KozinetsR. V. (2015). Netnography redefined (2nd ed.). Sage Ltd.
30.
KozinetsR. V. (2020). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research (3rd ed.). Sage Ltd.
31.
LeeD. J.KearnsJ. C.WiscoB. E.GreenJ. D.GradusJ. L.SloanD. M.NockM. K.RosenR. C.KeaneT. M.MarxB. P. (2018). A longitudinal study of risk factors for suicide attempts among operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi freedom veterans. Depression and Anxiety, 35(7), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22736
32.
McCay-PeeL.Quan-HaaseA. (2017). What is social media and what questions can social media research help us answer? In SloanL.Quan-HaaseA. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media research methods, 13–26. ProQuest Ebook Central.
33.
MetcalfJ.CrawfordK. (2016). Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2053951716650211
34.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., PRISMA Group, & and the PRISMA Group. (2009). Reprint–Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta–analyses: The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC.McInerneyP.Baldini SoaresC.KhalilH.ParkerD. (2017). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In AromatarisE.MunnZ. (Eds.), Joanna briggs institute reviewer's Manual for evidence synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
PuschmannC. (2019). An end to the wild west of social media research: A response to axel bruns. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1582-1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646300
SchumanD. L.LawrenceK. A.PopeN. (2019). Broadcasting war trauma: An exploratory netnography of Veterans' YouTube vlogs. Qualitative Health Research, 29(3), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732318797623
42.
SchumanD. L.PopeN.JohnsonA. (2020). Netnography in a military context: Ethical considerations. In KozinetsR. V.GambiniR. (Eds.), Netnography unlimited (pp. 83-99). Routledge.
ShivayogiP. (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(1), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.016389
45.
SternN.Ben ShalomU. (2019). Confessions and tweets: Social media and everyday experience in the Israel defense forces. Armed Forces and Society, 47(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X19859304
46.
SugiuraL.WilesR.PopeC. (2017). Ethical challenges in online research: Public/private perceptions. Research Ethics, 13(3-4), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1747016116650720
47.
TaddickenM. (2012). Privacy, surveillance, and self-disclosure in the social web. In FuchsC.BoersmaE.AlbrechslundA.SandovalS. (Eds.), Internet and surveillance: The challenges of Web 2.0 and social media (pp. 255-272). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
48.
TaddickenM.JersC. (2011). The uses of privacy online: Trading a loss of privacy for social web gratifications? In TrepteS.ReineckeL. (Eds.), Privacy online (pp. 143-156). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21521-6_11
49.
TalkingtonB. K. (2011). Communicating support: Where and how Army spouses seek community (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Theses and Dissertations. (U.M.I. NO. 3459129).
50.
TaylorJ.PagliariC. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges?Research Ethics, 14(2), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1747016117738559
51.
ThompsonA.StringfellowL.MacleanM.NazzalA. (2021). Ethical considerations and challenges for using digital ethnography to research vulnerable populations. Journal of Business Research, 124, 676-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.025
52.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.GarrittyC.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850
53.
TuikkaA.NguyesC.KimppaK. K. (2017). Ethical questions related to using netnography as research method. Orbit Journal, 1(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.29297/orbit.v1i2.50
TunçalpD.LêP. L. (2014). (Re)locating boundaries: A systematic review of online ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(1), 59-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-11-2012-0048
56.
U.S. Army (2019). All Army Activities Message 061/2019, Professionalization of online conduct, [061/2019 ALARACT]. https://perma.cc/Q4LD-3P76
VanTilL. D.SimkusK.Rolland-HarrisE.PedlarD. J. (2018). Veteran suicide mortality in Canada from 1976 to 2012. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 4(2), 110-116. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh.2017-0045
62.
VitakJ.ProferesN.ShiltonK.AshktorabZ. (2017). Ethics regulation in social computing research: Examining the role of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(5), 372-382. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1556264617725200
