Reasoning "Uncharted Territory": Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media.

Chelsea Sellers,Gabrielle Samuel,Gemma Derrick

doi:10.1177/1556264619837088

Abstract

The fast changing field of social media (SM) research presents unique challenges for research ethics committees (RECs). This article examines notions of experience and expertise in the context of REC members reviewing proposals for SM research and considers the role of the RECs in this area of review. We analyze 19 interviews with REC members to highlight that a lack of personal and professional experience of SM, compounded by a lack of institutional and professional guidelines, mean many REC members feel they do not possess sufficient expertise to review SM research. This view was supported by 14 interviews with SM researchers. REC members drew on strategies to overcome their lack of experience, although most SM researchers still found this problematic, to varying degrees. We recommend several steps to ensure REC expertise in SM research keeps pace of this fast-developing field, taking a pro-active, dialogic approach.

Highlights

There has been an increase in recent years in the use of social media (SM) for research purposes, in part due the increase in the range and use of such platforms and the variety of data they produce (Bassett & O’Riordan, 2002; Carter et al, 2016; Zeng, Chen, Lusch, & Li, 2010), resulting in a research agenda that has “drawn attention from research communities in all major disciplines” (Zeng et al, 2010, p. 14)
We consider the implications of research ethics committees (RECs) members’ limited personal and professional exposure to SM on the extent to which they felt warranted to make judgments on the ethics of SM research. We highlight how this is compounded by a lack of clear formal guidelines from both institutions and professional bodies, and outline the strategies REC members use in lieu of such guidelines
We close this section by turning to the perspectives and experiences of the SM researchers interviewed—highlighting the implications of REC members’ lack of experience for those going through the review process, and its impact on the perceived purpose of RECs and the ethics review process

Summary

Introduction

There has been an increase in recent years in the use of social media (SM) for research purposes, in part due the increase in the range and use of such platforms and the variety of data they produce (Bassett & O’Riordan, 2002; Carter et al, 2016; Zeng, Chen, Lusch, & Li, 2010), resulting in a research agenda that has “drawn attention from research communities in all major disciplines” (Zeng et al, 2010, p. 14). One of the many prominent concerns relates to RECs’ lack of experience and/or expertise when reviewing research in certain (social) scientific fields which use specific methodologies, or have “untraditional” ethical concerns which need addressing (Birnbacher, 2012; Douglas, 2012; Emmerich, 2015; Iltis & Sheehan, 2016; Rasmussen, 2016) Others, such as Garrard and Dawson (2005), have challenged these critiques, arguing that the legitimacy of RECs derives from the diversity of their members and the process of deliberation they engage in and, “there are no more grounds to worry about the legitimacy and authority of RECs than of any other constituted regulatory body” This article reports REC member experience and expertise reviewing SM research, and discusses the implications of these findings in terms of the conceptualizations of expertise highlighted above, as well as in terms of ethical REC governance of the SM research field in general

Method

Results

Conclusion

Limitations