Desafíos éticos en el estudio de comunidades digitales: una propuesta basada en un caso empírico

Ignacio López Escarcena

doi:10.7764/cdi.49.27911

Autores/as

Ignacio López Escarcena Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.49.27911

Palabras clave:

comunicación digital, ética, comunidades en línea, investigación en Internet

Resumen

Este artículo busca aplicar a un caso empírico algunas de las principales preocupaciones éticas para investigadores con respecto al estudio de comunidades en la comunicación digital. En ese sentido, una consideración esencial se relaciona con las acciones que pueden resguardar a los participantes que comentan públicamente en línea de sufrir daño cuando se utilizan los contenidos generados por los usuarios para estudios académicos. Con esto en mente, se toma como caso empírico un estudio sobre tres plataformas en línea, en las que sus integrantes discuten acerca de cine. Por medio de una metodología que plantea aplicar un disfraz leve a la hora de divulgar los resultados, este artículo busca resaltar la importancia de modificar los nombres de los usuarios, más allá de las características de la plataforma en cuestión. Si bien es necesario considerar que la comunicación digital supone evaluar cada investigación desde un punto de vista ético, alterar los datos de los participantes ayuda a resguardar a quienes compartieron contenido sin tener presente que este material pudiera ser analizado en un estudio académico.

Biografía del autor/a

Ignacio López Escarcena, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

Profesor Asistente en el Departamento de Periodismo de la Facultad de Comunicaciones, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Es periodista y magíster en Comunicación Estratégica por la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, magíster en Medios y Comunicación (Investigación) por la London School of Economics and Political Science y doctor en Lenguaje, Discurso y Comunicación por King’s College London, Inglaterra. Sus áreas de interés son la comunicación digital, la ética de las comunicaciones, la sociolingüística y la narración.

Citas

Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography. Language@Internet, 5, article 8. Retrieved from https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2008/1610

Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Computer-mediated Communication and Linguistic Landscapes. In J. Holmes & K. Hazen (Eds.), Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide (pp. 74-90). Wiley-Blackwell.

Angouri, J. & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You Have No Idea What You are Talking About!” From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 57-82. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2010.004

Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 47(6), 366–369. https://doi.org/10.1159/000081039

Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small? Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.18bam

Bamberg, M. & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.018

Baym, N. K. & boyd, d. (2012). Socially Mediated Publicness: An Introduction. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(3), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705200

Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology, (4), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021316409277

Deller, R. A. (2018). Ethics in Fan Studies Research. In P. Booth (Ed.), A Companion to Fandom and Fan Studies (pp. 123-142). Blackwell.

De Abreu, C. L. (2014). Ethical issues in the use of social networks as a field of research: public places or private rooms? In P. Landri, A. Maccarini, & R. De Rosa (Eds.), Networked together: designing participatory research in online ethnography (pp. 15-23). CNR-IRPPS e-Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3233/

De Fina, A. & Georgakopoulou, A. (2012). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

De-Matteis, L. (2014). Ejes para un debate sobre el uso ético de datos interaccionales escritos y orales obtenidos en línea. In I Jornadas Nacionales de Humanidades Digitales. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Asociación Argentina de Humanidades Digitales. Retrieved from https://www.aacademica.org/jornadasaahd/83

Díaz-Campo, J. & Segado-Boj, F. (2015). Journalism ethics in a digital environment: How journalistic codes of ethics have been adapted to the Internet and ICTs in countries around the world. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 735-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.004

franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C. M. (2020). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Retrieved from https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pd

Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic Approaches to the Internet and Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 52-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241607310839

Georgakopoulou, A. (2006a). Small and large identities in narrative (inter)action. In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and Identity (pp. 83-102). Cambdridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584459.005

Georgakopoulou, A. (2006b). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.16geo

Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

Georgakopoulou, A. (2016). ‘Whose context collapse?’: Ethical clashes in the study of language and social media in context. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2-3). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-1034

Eberwein, T. & Porlezza, C. (2016). Both Sides of the Story: Communication Ethics in Mediatized Worlds. Journal of Communication, 66(2), 328-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12216

Ensslin, A. & Johnson, S. (2006). Language in the news: investigations into representations of ‘Englishness’ using WordSmith Tools. Corpora, 1(2), 153-185. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.153

Fuchs, C. (2020). The Ethics of the Digital Commons. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(2), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1736077

Herring, S. C. (Ed.) (1996). Computer-mediated communication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.

Kantanen, H. & Manninen, J. (2016). Hazy Boundaries: Virtual Communities and Research Ethics. Media and Communication, 4(4), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.576

Kytölä, S. (2013). Multilingual Language Use and Metapragmatic Reflexivity in Finnish Online Football Forums. A study in the Sociolinguistics of Globalization (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/41042/1/978-951-39-5132-0_vaitos21032013.pdf

Kozinets, R. (2010). Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Kozinets, R., Dolbec, P., & Earley, A. (2014). Netnographic analysis: Understanding culture through social media data. In U. Flick (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 262-275). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts (pp. 12-44). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

López Escarcena, I. (2018). The discursive construction of expert identities in online film reviews: A study of a global, a Latin American, and a Chilean website (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). King’s College London, United Kingdom.

MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (4th ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., Kim, S. J., & Vandenbosch, M. B. (2016). Evidence that usergenerated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 427-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1148066

Markham, A. & Baym, N. K. (2009). Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research, Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

McKee, H. A. & Porter, J. E. (2009). The .Ethics of Internet Research: A Rhetorical, Case-Based Process. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Naab, T. K. & Sehl, A. (2016) Studies of user-generated content: A systematic review. Journalism, 18(10), 1256-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916673557

Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus, 140(4), 32-48. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00113

Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching language and social media: A student guide. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pletikosa, I. & Michahelles, F. (2013). Understanding the user generated content and interactions on a Facebook brand page. International Journal of Social and Humanistic Computing, 2(1-2), 118-140. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSHC.2013.053270

Rosenberg, A. (2010). Virtual World Research Ethics and the Private/Public Distinction. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 23-37.

Sanders, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet (pp. 67-79). Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg.

Scott, M. (1997). PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System, 25(2), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00011-0

Spinda, J. S. W. (2017). Communication and technology. In M. Allen (Ed.). The Sage Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 173-177). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Vásquez, C. (2015). Right now versus back then: Recency and remoteness as discursive resources in online reviews. Discourse, Context & Media, 9, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.05.010

Ward, S. J. (2005). Philosophical Foundations for Global Journalism Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327728jmme2001_2

Ward, S. J. (2014). Radical Media Ethics: Ethics for a global digital world. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 455-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.952985

Willis, R. (2017). Observations online: Finding the ethical boundaries of Facebook research. Research Ethics, 15(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117740176

Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research on Facebook.

Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5