转型(在)互联网上:研究网上性别转换叙述的伦理挑战与矛盾的转变

Q3 Social Sciences
Joanna Chojnicka
{"title":"转型(在)互联网上:研究网上性别转换叙述的伦理挑战与矛盾的转变","authors":"Joanna Chojnicka","doi":"10.18778/1733-8077.20.1.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of social media in qualitative research has become extremely popular. YouTube, in particular, has attracted attention from scholars working on (self-)representation of minority groups, including the transgender community (e.g., Dame 2013; Horak 2014). Most academic disciplines, however, have been slow in responding to the increasingly challenging nature of social media in terms of their ethics and methodologies. For example, there is a common misconception that any publicly available YouTube videos can be freely used for research. Many studies openly reference the YouTube channels they discuss (Wotanis and McMillan 2014) or anonymize data, but do not seek informed consent from creators (Raun 2020). What is more, researchers rarely reflect on how their work could impact the communities under study or the way creators use social media (Leonelli et al. 2021). At the same time, researchers wishing to protect vulnerable communities may find themselves falling short of FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable) research principles required by funders. In this contribution, I discuss these and other challenges using, as a case study, my project, which investigates gender transition narratives on Polish social media. I wish to show that there is no one-fits-all approach to the ethics of social media studies—as the very nature of social media is in constant flux—and call for attentiveness and reflexivity as an inextricable component of qualitative social media research methodology.","PeriodicalId":53708,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Sociology Review","volume":"138 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transitioning (on the) Internet: Shifting Challenges and Contradictions of Ethics of Studying Online Gender Transition Narratives\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Chojnicka\",\"doi\":\"10.18778/1733-8077.20.1.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of social media in qualitative research has become extremely popular. YouTube, in particular, has attracted attention from scholars working on (self-)representation of minority groups, including the transgender community (e.g., Dame 2013; Horak 2014). Most academic disciplines, however, have been slow in responding to the increasingly challenging nature of social media in terms of their ethics and methodologies. For example, there is a common misconception that any publicly available YouTube videos can be freely used for research. Many studies openly reference the YouTube channels they discuss (Wotanis and McMillan 2014) or anonymize data, but do not seek informed consent from creators (Raun 2020). What is more, researchers rarely reflect on how their work could impact the communities under study or the way creators use social media (Leonelli et al. 2021). At the same time, researchers wishing to protect vulnerable communities may find themselves falling short of FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable) research principles required by funders. In this contribution, I discuss these and other challenges using, as a case study, my project, which investigates gender transition narratives on Polish social media. I wish to show that there is no one-fits-all approach to the ethics of social media studies—as the very nature of social media is in constant flux—and call for attentiveness and reflexivity as an inextricable component of qualitative social media research methodology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Sociology Review\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Sociology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.20.1.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.20.1.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在定性研究中使用社交媒体已变得极为流行。YouTube尤其吸引了研究变性人等少数群体(自我)表征的学者的关注(例如,Dame,2013 年;Horak,2014 年)。然而,大多数学科对社交媒体在伦理和方法论方面日益具有挑战性的性质反应迟缓。例如,人们普遍误认为任何公开的 YouTube 视频都可以随意用于研究。许多研究公开引用他们所讨论的 YouTube 频道(Wotanis 和 McMillan,2014 年)或对数据进行匿名处理,但并不征求创作者的知情同意(Raun,2020 年)。此外,研究人员很少思考他们的工作会如何影响所研究的社区或创作者使用社交媒体的方式(Leonelli 等,2021 年)。同时,希望保护弱势社群的研究人员可能会发现自己没有达到资助者要求的 FAIR(可发现、可访问、可互操作、可重复使用)研究原则。在本文中,我将以我的项目为案例,讨论这些挑战和其他挑战,我的项目调查了波兰社交媒体上的性别转换叙事。我希望说明,社交媒体研究的伦理没有放之四海而皆准的方法--因为社交媒体的本质是不断变化的--并呼吁将关注度和反思性作为社交媒体定性研究方法不可分割的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transitioning (on the) Internet: Shifting Challenges and Contradictions of Ethics of Studying Online Gender Transition Narratives
The use of social media in qualitative research has become extremely popular. YouTube, in particular, has attracted attention from scholars working on (self-)representation of minority groups, including the transgender community (e.g., Dame 2013; Horak 2014). Most academic disciplines, however, have been slow in responding to the increasingly challenging nature of social media in terms of their ethics and methodologies. For example, there is a common misconception that any publicly available YouTube videos can be freely used for research. Many studies openly reference the YouTube channels they discuss (Wotanis and McMillan 2014) or anonymize data, but do not seek informed consent from creators (Raun 2020). What is more, researchers rarely reflect on how their work could impact the communities under study or the way creators use social media (Leonelli et al. 2021). At the same time, researchers wishing to protect vulnerable communities may find themselves falling short of FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable) research principles required by funders. In this contribution, I discuss these and other challenges using, as a case study, my project, which investigates gender transition narratives on Polish social media. I wish to show that there is no one-fits-all approach to the ethics of social media studies—as the very nature of social media is in constant flux—and call for attentiveness and reflexivity as an inextricable component of qualitative social media research methodology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Qualitative Sociology Review
Qualitative Sociology Review Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: For a long time, we have observed an increased interest in qualitative sociology, and the use of an interpretive frame to understand human actions, social processes, meanings and definitions, and new social theory generally. In order to enable a free flow of information and to integrate the community of qualitative sociologists, we have decided to create an open-access, international scientific journal. Qualitative Sociology Review publishes empirical, theoretical and methodological articles applicable to all fields and specializations within sociology.
×
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