Cargando…

Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places

New technologies like large-scale social media sites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and crowdsourcing services (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Crowdflower, Clickworker) are impacting social science research and providing many new and interesting avenues for research. The use of these new technologies f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gleibs, Ilka H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27515317
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0789-y
_version_ 1783254752369311744
author Gleibs, Ilka H.
author_facet Gleibs, Ilka H.
author_sort Gleibs, Ilka H.
collection PubMed
description New technologies like large-scale social media sites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and crowdsourcing services (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Crowdflower, Clickworker) are impacting social science research and providing many new and interesting avenues for research. The use of these new technologies for research has not been without challenges, and a recently published psychological study on Facebook has led to a widespread discussion of the ethics of conducting large-scale experiments online. Surprisingly little has been said about the ethics of conducting research using commercial crowdsourcing marketplaces. In this article, I focus on the question of which ethical questions are raised by data collection with crowdsourcing tools. I briefly draw on the implications of Internet research more generally, and then focus on the specific challenges that research with crowdsourcing tools faces. I identify fair pay and the related issue of respect for autonomy, as well as problems with the power dynamic between researcher and participant, which has implications for withdrawal without prejudice, as the major ethical challenges of crowdsourced data. Furthermore, I wish to draw attention to how we can develop a “best practice” for researchers using crowdsourcing tools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5541108
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55411082017-08-17 Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places Gleibs, Ilka H. Behav Res Methods Article New technologies like large-scale social media sites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and crowdsourcing services (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Crowdflower, Clickworker) are impacting social science research and providing many new and interesting avenues for research. The use of these new technologies for research has not been without challenges, and a recently published psychological study on Facebook has led to a widespread discussion of the ethics of conducting large-scale experiments online. Surprisingly little has been said about the ethics of conducting research using commercial crowdsourcing marketplaces. In this article, I focus on the question of which ethical questions are raised by data collection with crowdsourcing tools. I briefly draw on the implications of Internet research more generally, and then focus on the specific challenges that research with crowdsourcing tools faces. I identify fair pay and the related issue of respect for autonomy, as well as problems with the power dynamic between researcher and participant, which has implications for withdrawal without prejudice, as the major ethical challenges of crowdsourced data. Furthermore, I wish to draw attention to how we can develop a “best practice” for researchers using crowdsourcing tools. Springer US 2016-08-11 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5541108/ /pubmed/27515317 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0789-y Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Gleibs, Ilka H.
Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title_full Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title_fullStr Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title_full_unstemmed Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title_short Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
title_sort are all “research fields” equal? rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27515317
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0789-y
work_keys_str_mv AT gleibsilkah areallresearchfieldsequalrethinkingpracticefortheuseofdatafromcrowdsourcingmarketplaces