The Ethical Challenges of Publishing Twitter Data for Research Dissemination

ABSTRACT

Empirical research involving the analysis of Internet-based data raises a number of ethical challenges. One instance of this is the analysis of Twitter data, in particular when specific tweets are reproduced for the purposes of dissemination. Although Twitter is an open platform it is possible to question whether this provides a sufficient ethical justification to collect, analyse and reproduce tweets for the purposes of research or whether it is necessary to also undertake specific informed consent procedures. This paper reports on an ethics consultation that formed part of a wider research study and that aimed to identify best practice procedures for the publication of Twitter data in research findings. We focus largely on the UK context and draw on the outcomes of the consultation to highlight the range and depth of ethical issues that arise in this area. We can see Twitter as a case study for a wide number of data sources used in Web Science. This is a highly complex landscape in which questions crystallise around fundamental principles such as informed consent, anonymisation and the minimisation of harm. Furthermore, tensions exist between commercial, regulatory and academic practices, and there are also circumstances in which good ethical practice might compromise academic integrity. There is an absence of consensus in Web science and related fields over how to resolve these issues and we argue that constructive debate is necessary in order to take a proactive approach towards good practice.

References

1. For overview see: Gayo-Avello, D. 2013. A meta-analysis of state of the art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review 31, 6 (Aug. 2013) 649--679.
2. For overview see: Webb, H., Burnap, P., Procter, R. Rana, O., Stahl, B., Williams, A., Housley, W., Edwards, A., and Jirotka, M. 2016 Digital Wildfires' Propagation, Verification, Regulation and Responsible Innovation ACM Transactions on Information Systems.34, 3 (April 2016).
3. For example see: Burnap, P. and Williams, M. L. 2016 Us and them: indentifying cyberhate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EJP Data Science 5, 11. Available online at http://orca.cf.ac.uk/88072/. And: Pak, A., and Paroubek, P. 2010 Twitter as a Corpus for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. LREc. Vol. 10. No. 2010.
4. For overview see: Marwick, A. 2013 Ethnographic and Qualitative Research on Twitter. In Weller, K., Bruns, A., Puschmann, C., Burgess, J. and Mahrt, M. (eds.) Twitter and Society New York: Peter Lang, 109--122.
5. For example, see: Stahl, B. C. Heersmink, R. Goujon, P. Flick, C. van den Hoven, J. Wakunuma, K. Veikko Ikonen, V.T.T. and Rader, M. 2010. Identifying the ethics of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies. International Journal of Technoethics 1,4,20--38; boyd, d and Crawford, K. 2012 Critical questions for big data Information, Communication and Society 15,6. 662--679 Zimmer, M. 2010. "But the data is already public" on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology 12,4, 313--325; Zwitter, A. J. 2014. Big Data Ethics Big Data and Society 1,2 Nov 2014 doi/10.1177/2053951714559253; Schroeder, R. 2014. Big Data and the brave new world of social media research Big Data and Society 1,2 Dec 2014. DOI=10.1177/2053951714563194.
6. For example see: Neuhas, F. and Webmoor, 2012. Agile ethics for massified research and visualization. Information, Communication and Society 15,1, 43--65. And: McNeily, M., Hutton, L. and Henderson, T. 2013. Understanding ethical concerns in social media privacy studies. In Proceedings of the ACM CSCW Workshop on measuring networked social privacy: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches.
7. For overview see: Zimmer, M. and Proferes, N.J. 2014. A topology of Twitter research: disciplines, methods and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management 66,3, 250--261, 1--10.
8. World Economic Forum, 2013 Digital Wildfires in a hyperconnected world. Global Risks Report. World Economic Forum (Feb. 2013). Available online at: .http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/
9. Webb, H., Jirotka, M., Carsten Stahl, B., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Williams, M., Procter, R., Rana, O. and Burnap, P. (2015). Digital wildfires: hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media. Computers and Society 45(3), 193--201.
10. For further details of these approaches see: Housley, W., Webb, H., Williams, M. et. al. (forthcoming) Social Media, Interaction and Categorisation: The Case of Twitter Campaigns. Social Media and Society special issue on Social Movements and Social Media. And: Tolmie, P., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Liakata, M. and Zubiaga, A. Microblog Analysis as a programme of work. Submitted to ACM Transactions on Social Computing.
11. British Psychological Society, 2013. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. INF206/1.2013. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Available online at: www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-andguidelines/research-guidelines-policydocuments/research-guidelines-poli
12. Markham, A. and Buchanan, E, 2012. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). AoIR. Available online at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
13. Townsend, L. and Wallace, C. Social Media Research: A guide to ethics. Available online at: http://www.dotrural.ac.uk/socialmediaresearchethics.pdf
14. Dingwall, R. and Murphy, E. 2003. Qualitative Methods and Health Policy Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
15. Evans, H., Ginnis, S. and Bartlett, J 2015. #social Ethics: a guide to embedding ethics in social media research. Demos. Available online at https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/im-demos-social-ethics-in-social-media-research-summary.pdf
16. Moffat, A. and Koene, A. 2016. Public Outreach Evaluation Tool (TOOL). Poster presented at the Social Media and Society Conference July 2016.
17. For example, see: Ronson, J. 2015 So You've been publicly shamed. London: Penguin Publishing group. And see also: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/sorell/tom_sorrell_-_digilantism.mp4
18. For example, Awan, I. 2014. Islamophobia on Twitter: A Typology of Online Hate Against Muslims on Social Media Policy & Internet 6, 2, 133--150.
19. Markham, A. 2005. "Go ugly early": Fragmented narrative and bricolage as interpretive method. Qualitative Inquiry 11,16, 813--819
20. Carus, A., and Jirotka, M. 2009 From Data Archive to Ethical Labyrinth Qualitative Research 9, 3, 285--299
21. See for example: Moran, S., Luger, E. and Rodden, T. 2014. An emerging toolkit for attaining informed consent in UbiComp. UbiComp '14 Adjunct Sep 2014 Available online at: http://ubicomp.org/ubicomp2014/proceedings/ubicomp_adjunct/workshops/Consent/p635-moran.pdf

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

    • Data mining

      • Clustering

• Social and professional topics

  • User characteristics

    • Geographic characteristics