Informed consent for linking survey and social media data - Differences between platforms and data types

IASSIST quarterly Pub Date : 2021-03-29 DOI:10.29173/IQ988
Johannes Breuer, Tarek Al Baghal, Luke S Sloan, L. Bishop, Dimitra Kondyli, Apostolos Linardis
{"title":"Informed consent for linking survey and social media data - Differences between platforms and data types","authors":"Johannes Breuer, Tarek Al Baghal, Luke S Sloan, L. Bishop, Dimitra Kondyli, Apostolos Linardis","doi":"10.29173/IQ988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Linking social media data with survey data is a way to combine the unique strengths and address some of the respective limitations of these two data types. As such linked data can be quite disclosive and potentially sensitive, it is important that researchers obtain informed consent from the individuals whose data are being linked. When formulating appropriate informed consent, there are several things that researchers need to take into account. Besides legal and ethical questions, key aspects to consider are the differences between platforms and data types. Depending on what type of social media data is collected, how the data are collected, and from which platform(s), different points need to be addressed in the informed consent. In this paper, we present three case studies in which survey data were linked with data from 1) Twitter, 2) Facebook, and 3) LinkedIn and discuss how the specific features of the platforms and data collection methods were covered in the informed consent. We compare the key attributes of these platforms that are relevant for the formulation of informed consent and also discuss scenarios of social media data collection and linking in which obtaining informed consent is not necessary. By presenting the specific case studies as well as general considerations, this paper is meant to provide guidance on informed consent for linked survey and social media data for both researchers and archivists working with this type of data.","PeriodicalId":84870,"journal":{"name":"IASSIST quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IASSIST quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/IQ988","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Linking social media data with survey data is a way to combine the unique strengths and address some of the respective limitations of these two data types. As such linked data can be quite disclosive and potentially sensitive, it is important that researchers obtain informed consent from the individuals whose data are being linked. When formulating appropriate informed consent, there are several things that researchers need to take into account. Besides legal and ethical questions, key aspects to consider are the differences between platforms and data types. Depending on what type of social media data is collected, how the data are collected, and from which platform(s), different points need to be addressed in the informed consent. In this paper, we present three case studies in which survey data were linked with data from 1) Twitter, 2) Facebook, and 3) LinkedIn and discuss how the specific features of the platforms and data collection methods were covered in the informed consent. We compare the key attributes of these platforms that are relevant for the formulation of informed consent and also discuss scenarios of social media data collection and linking in which obtaining informed consent is not necessary. By presenting the specific case studies as well as general considerations, this paper is meant to provide guidance on informed consent for linked survey and social media data for both researchers and archivists working with this type of data.
连接调查和社交媒体数据的知情同意书-平台和数据类型之间的差异
将社交媒体数据与调查数据联系起来,是将这两种数据类型的独特优势结合起来并解决其各自局限性的一种方式。由于此类关联数据可能具有很强的披露性和潜在的敏感性,研究人员必须获得数据关联个人的知情同意。在制定适当的知情同意书时,研究人员需要考虑以下几点。除了法律和伦理问题外,需要考虑的关键方面是平台和数据类型之间的差异。根据收集的社交媒体数据类型、数据收集方式以及从哪个平台收集,需要在知情同意书中解决不同的问题。在本文中,我们提出了三个案例研究,其中调查数据与1)推特、2)脸书和3)领英的数据相关联,并讨论了知情同意书中如何涵盖平台的具体功能和数据收集方法。我们比较了这些平台与制定知情同意书相关的关键属性,还讨论了社交媒体数据收集和链接的场景,其中不需要获得知情同意。通过介绍具体的案例研究和一般考虑,本文旨在为研究人员和使用此类数据的档案管理员提供有关关联调查和社交媒体数据知情同意的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信