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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |