Spinning words as disguise: Shady services for ethical research?

Ethical researchers who want to quote public user-generated content without further exposing these sources have little guidance as to how to disguise quotes. Reagle (2021b) showed that researchers’ attempts to disguise phrases on Reddit are often haphazard and ineffective. Are there tools that can help? Automated word spinners, used to generate reams of ad-laden content, seem suited to the task. We select 10 quotations from fictional posts on r/AmItheButtface and “spin” them using Spin Rewriter and WordAi. We review the usability of the services and then (1) search for their spins on Google; and, (2) ask human subjects (N=19) to judge them for fidelity. Participants also disguise three of those phrases and these are assessed for efficacy and the tactics employed. We recommend that researchers disguise their prose by substituting novel words (i.e., swapping infrequently occurring words, such as “toxic” with “radioactive”) and rearranging elements of sentence structure. The practice of testing spins, however, remains essential even when using good tactics; a Python script is provided to facilitate such testing.

Digital Ethics as Translational Ethics

There are growing calls for more digital ethics, largely in response to the many problems that have occurred with digital technologies. However, there has been less clarity about exactly what this might mean. This chapter argues first that ethical decisions and considerations are ubiquitous within the creation of digital technology. Ethical analyses cannot be treated as a secondary or optional aspect of technology creation. This argument does not specify the content of digital ethics, though, and so further research is needed. This chapter then argues that this research must take the form of translational ethics: a robust, multi-disciplinary effort to translate the abstract results of ethical research into practical guidance for technology creators. Examples are provided of this kind of translation from principles to different types of practices.

Positionality and reflexivity: Recognising and dismantling our privileges in childhood research through the use of windows and mirrors

This article explores how privileges, identities and worldviews influence every stage of childhood research processes. By using the ‘windows and mirrors’ and ‘the danger of the single story’ metaphors, I seek to deconstruct reflexivity and positionality in order to include different lenses of analysis for exploring how power and privileges inform the relationship between researchers and child participants. I argue that this reflexive process needs to pay greater attention to the intersection between identities, inequalities and power, to the impact of researchers feeling sympathy for the marginalised status of the child participant and to the normative and dominant positions that researchers might have based on their social standing. Drawing from my international fieldwork experience, I conclude that an understanding of how identities, power and privileges affect childhood research is critical for conducting ethical research, negotiating power with child participants and dismantling researchers’ privileges.

“Procedure versus practice”: navigating ethical tensions in social entrepreneurship research involving vulnerable people in the developing world

PurposeThis paper examines the ethical tensions in social entrepreneurship (SE) research by focusing on the ethical consequences of obtaining ethics approval in a university in the developed world while executing fieldwork for data collection in a developing country. It aims to offer insight into ethical research practice to protect vulnerable research participants from being further silenced and marginalised by the dominant social order that developed world universities embody.Design/methodology/approachThe ethical tensions are described through narratives drawn from a Filipino Ph.D. candidate's experience. The candidate obtained ethics approval from the university in New Zealand and collected interview data from social enterprise beneficiaries in the Philippines. A critical reflexive lens carves a space for a deepened understanding of these ethical tensions.FindingsThis paper offers critical insights into ethical SE research involving participants from vulnerable communities. These insights suggest that closer consideration needs to be given to contextual sensitivity, particularly on the part of researchers and research ethics committees, in crafting ethical data collection protocols. Findings also show how it is important for the indigenous researcher to filter ethical protocols through their local knowledge.Originality/valueThe paper uses critical reflexivity to examine ethical tensions in SE research involving vulnerable beneficiaries. It offers insights into ethical research procedures and practices that engender mindfulness of the contextual and relational aspects of doing SE research in the developing world.

Considerations for conducting sensitive research with the LGBTQIA+ communities

As LGBTQIA+ people in western societies get more comfortable publicly identifying as part of the LGBTQIA+ communities, research projects are increasingly collecting data related to such orientations. This may be done directly in studies focusing on the LGBTQIA+ communities or indirectly on studies focusing on the general population whose members may incidentally be of a diverse gender or sexuality. Accordingly, there is a need to conduct research in a way that is sensitive and inclusive of the diverse lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ people. Focusing on the notions of respect and beneficence underlining ethical research practice, this research note explains the heterogeneity inherent in the LGBTQIA+ acronym and draws implications for research practice. The article concludes by putting forward some considerations, focusing on the researcher, the research project, and the participant; to help market researchers when conducting research with LGBTQIA+ people.

Can I Share Your Ideas With the World? Young Children’s Consent in the Research Process

Utilizing the four features of informed consent from the guiding document Ethical Research Involving Children, the article illustrates how the informed consent process was carried out with young children from the initial planning stages through the ongoing research’s focused conversations. Specifically, the questions of what would be needed to acquire informed consent from the children and what assurances could there be that young children understood the research and how its results would be disseminated are addressed. The article concludes with suggestions for what other researchers might consider and include in their local contexts.