|
Ethics Working Committee Draft. Do Not Distribute. For Review Only.

Research addressing methods and ethics:

Permalink for this paragraph 0 Please, we encourage you to add citations as comments to this page.

  • Permalink for this paragraph 1
  • Bakardjieva, M. and  Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject: conceptual, methodological and ethical dimensions. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 233-40.
  • Bober, M. (2004). Virtual Youth Research: An Exploration of Methodologies and Ethical Dilemmas from a British Perspective (pp.288-316).  In Buchanan, E. (Ed.). Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies. Hershey: Idea Group.
  • Clegg Smith, K. M. (2004). “Electronic Eavesdropping”: The ethical issues involved in conducting a virtual ethnography. In Johns, M., Chen, S. and Hall, G. (Eds.).  Online S0cial Research: Methods, Issues, Ethics (223-238)). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Gajjala, R. (2004). Cyber Selves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
  • Hall, G. J, Frederick, D., & Johns, M.D. (2004). “NEED HELP ASAP!!!”: A Feminist Communitarian Approach to Online Research Ethics.  In Johns, M., Chen, S. and Hall, G. (Eds.).  Online S0cial Research: Methods, Issues, Ethics (pp. 239-252). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Hudson, J. M. and Bruckman, A. (2004). Go away: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research. Information Society, 20(2), 127-139.
  • Markham, A. (2006). Method as ethic, ethic as method. Journal of Information Ethics, 15(2), 37-55.
  • Markham , A. (2005). The politics, ethics, and methods of representation in online ethnography. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition (pp. 793-820). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
  • Markham, A. (2003). Critical junctures and ethical choices in Internet ethnography. In Thorseth, M. (Ed.) Applied Ethics in Internet Research (pp. 51-63). Trondheim, Norway: NTNU University Press.
  • McCleary, R. (2007). Ethical issues in online social work research. Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 4(1). Available: http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/view/46/50/
  • Meho, L.I. (2006). E-Mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (10), 1284-1295.
  • Sveningsson-Elm, M. (2009).  How do various notions of privacy influence decision making in qualitative internet research. In Markham, A. & Baym, N. (Eds.). Internet Inquiry: Conversation about Method (pp. 69-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Sveningsson, M. (2003). Ethics in Internet Ethnography. In Buchanan, E. (Ed.). Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies (pp. 45-61). Hershey: Idea Group.
  • Walther, J. (2002). Research Ethics in Internet-enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3). Available: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_walther.html
  • Walstrom, M. (2004). Ethics and Engagement in Communication Scholarship: Analyzing Public, Online Support Groups as Researcher/Participant-Experiencer. In Buchanan, E. (Ed.). Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies (pp. 174-202). Hershey: Idea Group.
  • Whiteman, N. (2010). Control and Contingency: Maintaining and Ethical Stance in Research. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics 3 (1), 6-22.
page 25