No Cover Image

Journal article 211 views 16 downloads

Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research

Joe Whittaker Orcid Logo, Elizabeth Pearson, Ashley A Mattheis Orcid Logo, Till Baaken, Sara Zeiger, Farangiz Atamuradova, Maura Conway Orcid Logo

New Media and Society

Swansea University Authors: Joe Whittaker Orcid Logo, Maura Conway Orcid Logo

  • 68706.VoR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © The Author(s) 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

    Download (279.17KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1177/14614448251317471

Abstract

Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing,...

Full description

Published in: New Media and Society
ISSN: 1461-4448 1461-7315
Published: SAGE Publications 2025
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa68706
first_indexed 2025-01-17T09:43:40Z
last_indexed 2025-04-02T04:34:27Z
id cronfa68706
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-04-01T16:04:14.1253833</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>68706</id><entry>2025-01-17</entry><title>Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>112ed59957393e783f913443ec80faab</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-7342-6369</ORCID><firstname>Joe</firstname><surname>Whittaker</surname><name>Joe Whittaker</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>a85f1f79fa2041b345e47eb55062d1b7</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-4216-8592</ORCID><firstname>Maura</firstname><surname>Conway</surname><name>Maura Conway</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-01-17</date><deptcode>SOSS</deptcode><abstract>Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers&#x2019; experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their &#x201C;risky&#x201D; research, creating a &#x201C;Catch 22&#x201D;: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues&#x2019;) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>New Media and Society</journal><volume>0</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1461-4448</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1461-7315</issnElectronic><keywords>Academic freedom; ethics; extremism; researcher welfare; social media; terrorism</keywords><publishedDay>28</publishedDay><publishedMonth>2</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2025</publishedYear><publishedDate>2025-02-28</publishedDate><doi>10.1177/14614448251317471</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Social Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>SOSS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal)</apcterm><funders>Terrorism &amp; Social Media Conference 2019 Sandpit Event</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-04-01T16:04:14.1253833</lastEdited><Created>2025-01-17T09:35:52.7619371</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Social Sciences - Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Joe</firstname><surname>Whittaker</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7342-6369</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Elizabeth</firstname><surname>Pearson</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Ashley A</firstname><surname>Mattheis</surname><orcid>0000-0002-2919-0712</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Till</firstname><surname>Baaken</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Sara</firstname><surname>Zeiger</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Farangiz</firstname><surname>Atamuradova</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Maura</firstname><surname>Conway</surname><orcid>0000-0003-4216-8592</orcid><order>7</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>68706__33725__55242b1388fe4e38b3f77ccead574690.pdf</filename><originalFilename>68706.VoR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2025-03-03T12:00:04.5023508</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>285869</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; The Author(s) 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-04-01T16:04:14.1253833 v2 68706 2025-01-17 Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research 112ed59957393e783f913443ec80faab 0000-0001-7342-6369 Joe Whittaker Joe Whittaker true false a85f1f79fa2041b345e47eb55062d1b7 0000-0003-4216-8592 Maura Conway Maura Conway true false 2025-01-17 SOSS Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their “risky” research, creating a “Catch 22”: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues’) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes. Journal Article New Media and Society 0 SAGE Publications 1461-4448 1461-7315 Academic freedom; ethics; extremism; researcher welfare; social media; terrorism 28 2 2025 2025-02-28 10.1177/14614448251317471 COLLEGE NANME Social Sciences School COLLEGE CODE SOSS Swansea University SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal) Terrorism & Social Media Conference 2019 Sandpit Event 2025-04-01T16:04:14.1253833 2025-01-17T09:35:52.7619371 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Social Sciences - Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy Joe Whittaker 0000-0001-7342-6369 1 Elizabeth Pearson 2 Ashley A Mattheis 0000-0002-2919-0712 3 Till Baaken 4 Sara Zeiger 5 Farangiz Atamuradova 6 Maura Conway 0000-0003-4216-8592 7 68706__33725__55242b1388fe4e38b3f77ccead574690.pdf 68706.VoR.pdf 2025-03-03T12:00:04.5023508 Output 285869 application/pdf Version of Record true © The Author(s) 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
spellingShingle Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
Joe Whittaker
Maura Conway
title_short Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
title_full Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
title_fullStr Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
title_full_unstemmed Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
title_sort Catch 22: Institutional ethics and researcher welfare within online extremism and terrorism research
author_id_str_mv 112ed59957393e783f913443ec80faab
a85f1f79fa2041b345e47eb55062d1b7
author_id_fullname_str_mv 112ed59957393e783f913443ec80faab_***_Joe Whittaker
a85f1f79fa2041b345e47eb55062d1b7_***_Maura Conway
author Joe Whittaker
Maura Conway
author2 Joe Whittaker
Elizabeth Pearson
Ashley A Mattheis
Till Baaken
Sara Zeiger
Farangiz Atamuradova
Maura Conway
format Journal article
container_title New Media and Society
container_volume 0
publishDate 2025
institution Swansea University
issn 1461-4448
1461-7315
doi_str_mv 10.1177/14614448251317471
publisher SAGE Publications
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Social Sciences - Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Social Sciences - Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their “risky” research, creating a “Catch 22”: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues’) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes.
published_date 2025-02-28T08:13:11Z
_version_ 1829180006212829184
score 11.057796

Similar Items