No Cover Image

Journal article 18 views

Catch 22: Institutional Ethics and Researcher Welfare within Online Extremism and Terrorism Research

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

New Media & Society

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

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 & Society
Published: Sage
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa68706
first_indexed 2025-01-17T09:43:40Z
last_indexed 2025-01-17T20:44:40Z
id cronfa68706
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-01-17T09:43:37.4798069</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 &amp; Society</journal><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Sage</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>0</publishedDay><publishedMonth>0</publishedMonth><publishedYear>0</publishedYear><publishedDate>0001-01-01</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Social Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>SOSS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders>Terrorism &amp; Social Media Conference 2019 Sandpit Event</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-01-17T09:43:37.4798069</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><orcid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-6107</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Ashley Mattheis</firstname><surname/><orcid>https://orcid.org/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>Maura</firstname><surname>Conway</surname><orcid>0000-0003-4216-8592</orcid><order>6</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-01-17T09:43:37.4798069 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 & Society Sage 0 0 0 0001-01-01 COLLEGE NANME Social Sciences School COLLEGE CODE SOSS Swansea University Terrorism & Social Media Conference 2019 Sandpit Event 2025-01-17T09:43:37.4798069 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 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-6107 2 Ashley Mattheis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2919-0712 3 Till Baaken 4 Sara Zeiger 5 Maura Conway 0000-0003-4216-8592 6
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 Mattheis
Till Baaken
Sara Zeiger
Maura Conway
format Journal article
container_title New Media & Society
institution Swansea University
publisher Sage
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 0
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 0001-01-01T08:39:25Z
_version_ 1821847076853514240
score 11.04802

Similar Items