The practice of conducting research online is in its infancy. Consequently there is debate concerning the ethical implications of online data collection. We outline three approaches to online data collection and focus specifically on the issues of consent and anonymity of participants. We conclude that ethical issues raised when planning and implementing online data collection are no different to those raised by more traditional approaches to data collection.
References
1.
GriffithsM. Sex on the Internet: Observations and implications for Internet sex addiction. J Sex Res2001; 38: 333–342.
2.
MurrayMFisherJD. The Internet: A virtually untapped tool for research: J Tech Hum Sci2002; 19: 5–18.
3.
SzaboAFrenklRCaputoA. Deprivation feelings anxiety and commitment in various forms of physical activity: A cross-sectional study on the Internet. Psychologia1996; 39: 223–230.
4.
FranklinKLowryC. Computer mediated focus group sessions: naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qual Res2001; 1: 169–184.
O'ConnorHMadgeC. Cyber-mothers: Online synchronous interviewing using conference software. Sociological Research Online2001; 5(4).
7.
HewsonCYulePLaurentDVogelC. Internet research methods. London: Sage2003.
8.
MannCStewartF. Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage2000.
9.
SharfB. Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the Internet. In JonesS. (Ed) Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net. Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage1999.
10.
MichalakEE. The use of the Internet as a research tool: the nature and characteristics of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) amongst a population of users Interacting with Computers1998; 9: 349–365.
11.
WalstromMK. “You know who's the thinnest?”: Combating surveillance and creating safety in coping with eating disorders online. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour2000; 3: 761–783.
12.
GlaserJDixitJGreenDP. Studying hate crime with the Internet: What makes racists advocate social violence?J Soc Issues2001; 58: 151–176.
13.
MorganDL. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology1996; 22: 129–152.
14.
KitzingerJ. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness1994; 16: 103–121.
15.
JoinsonAN. Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: Virtual worlds, real lives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan2003.
FleitasJ. Spinning tales form the world wide web: Qualitative research in an electronic environment. Qual Hlth Res1998; 8: 283–292.
18.
PacagnellaL. Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication1997; 3(1).
19.
WinzelbergA. The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with eating disorders. Computers in Human Behaviour1997; 13: 393–407.
20.
WaskulDDouglassM. Cyberself: The emergence of self in on-line chat. Information Society1997; 13: 375–397.
21.
McKennaKYABarghJA. Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Person Soc Psychol Bull2000; 4: 57–75.
22.
RubinZ. Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. J Exp Soc Psychol1975; 11: 233–260.
23.
AdamsJRodhamKGavinJ. Investigating the ‘self’ in deliberate self-harm, Qual Hlth Res2005; 15: 1293–1309.
24.
TurkleS. Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster1995.
