What's Wrong with the 'Golden Rule'? Conundrums of Conducting Ethical Research in Cyberspace

Three key values for ethical cyberspace research practices are evident in recent discussions: (1) protect the subjects from harm as a result of the research fieldwork and the research practices; (2) produce good social science research; and (3) do not unnecessarily perturb the phenomena studied. Much of the argumentation aims to negotiate the ethical conflicts that often emerge between these goals. Bakhtin argues that one can only strive for a bottom-up ethical wisdom built upon concrete examples, and disputes the possibility that rigid top-down application of universal rules constitutes ethical action. His perspective has key implications for ethical research practices. I illustrate this perspective at work through my recent fieldwork and writing practices in a virtual community. Research ethics for cyberspace are like research ethics for any other site. They should be situated, dialogic agreements that develop over time between researchers and the participants of the research study. It is unlikely that such research ethics can be abstractly codified, because there will often be differences between research sites, the situations of participants, and researcher goals. Researchers can, however, develop ethical wisdom that comes from experience with many configurations of research in cyberspace, and report on the conditions that grounded their ethical choices, and the results that emerged from their work in the site. These results will often be improved by feedback from participants about their experiences with the fieldwork and the effects of publication.