CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423Focus Groups and Qualitative MethodsData Analysis and ArchivingQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Towards an Ethical Framework for Publishing Twitter Data in Social Research: Taking into Account Users’ Views, Online Context and Algorithmic Estimation

Open access
Williams, Matthew L, Burnap, Pete, Sloan, Luke·2017·Sociology
DOI 10.1177/0038038517708140PMC PMC5718335
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

New and emerging forms of data, including posts harvested from social media sites such as Twitter, have become part of the sociologist’s data diet. In particular, some researchers see an advantage in the perceived ‘public’ nature of Twitter posts, representing them in publications without seeking informed consent. While such practice may not be at odds with Twitter’s terms of service, we argue there is a need to interpret these through the lens of social science research methods that imply a more reflexive ethical approach than provided in ‘legal’ accounts of the permissible use of these data in research publications. To challenge some existing practice in Twitter-based research, this article brings to the fore: (1) views of Twitter users through analysis of online survey data; (2) the effect of context collapse and online disinhibition on the behaviours of users; and (3) the publication of identifiable sensitive classifications derived from algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0038038517708140

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Making social media data identifiable in ways not originally intended by the user who posted the content could place an individual at risk of harm or divulge sensitive health information.

    “Precautions are needed to ensure that data is not made identifiable in ways that were not originally intended by the user who posted the content, as this could place an individual at risk of harm or divulge sensitive health information (Webb et al., 2017; Williams, Burnap, & Sloan, 2017).”

    From Social Media and Mental Health: Benefits, Risks, and Opportunities for Research and Practice (2020) · cites this paper as Williams, Burnap, & Sloan, 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Acquisti A (2009) Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. Security and Privacy, IEEE 7(6): 82– 85.
  2. Awan I (2014) Islamophobia and Twitter: A typology of online hate against Muslims on social media. Policy and Internet 6(2): 133– 150.
  3. Barocas S Nissenbaum H (2014) Big data’s end run around procedural privacy protections. Communications of the ACM 57(11): 3– 33.
  4. Beer D (2009) Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society 11(6): 985– 1002.
  5. boyd d (2014) It’s Complicated: Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  6. Buchanan EA Zimmer M (2016) Internet research ethics. In: Zalta EN (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standard, CA: Stanford University, 1– 22.
  7. Burnap P Williams ML (2015) Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy and Internet 7(2): 223– 242.
  8. Burnap P Williams ML (2016) Us and them: Identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Science 5(11): 1– 15. PMC7175598 32355598
  9. Burnap P Colombo G Scourfield JB (2015a) Machine classification and analysis of suicide-related communication on Twitter. Paper presented at the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Social Media, Cyprus, 1–4 September 2015.
  10. Burnap P Williams ML Rana O et al (2013) Detecting tension in online communities with computational Twitter analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 95(9): 96– 108.
  11. Burnap P Williams ML Rana O et al (2015b) COSMOS: Towards an integrated and scalable service for analysing social media on demand. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems 30(2): 80– 100.
  12. Burnap P Williams ML Sloan L (2014) Tweeting the terror: Modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining 4(206): 1– 4.
  13. Burrows R (2009) Afterword: Urban informatics and social ontology. In: Foth M (ed.) Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 450– 454.
  14. Couldry N Fotopoulou A Dickens L (2016) Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world. British Journal of Sociology 67(1): 118– 137. 26891120
  15. Dicks B Mason B Williams ML et al (2006) Ethnography and data reuse: Issues of context and hypertext. Methodological Innovations 1(2): 33– 46.
  16. Dorofeev S Grant P (2006) Statistics for Real-Life Sample Surveys: Non-Simple Random Samples and Weighted Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Edwards A Housley W Williams ML et al (2013) Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: Surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16(3): 245– 260.
  18. Eynon R Fry J Schroeder R (2016) The ethics of Internet research. In: Fielding N Lee RM Black G (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: SAGE.
  19. Hammersley M Atkinson P (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.
  20. Innes M Roberts C Preece A et al (2016) Ten ‘Rs’ of social reaction: Using social media to analyse the ‘post-event’ impacts of the murder of Lee Rigby. Terrorism and Political Violence. Epub ahead of print 7 July 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1180289. · DOI
  21. Joinson AN (1998) Causes and effects of disinhibition on the Internet. In: Gackenbach J (ed.) The Psychology of the Internet. New York: Academic Press, 43– 60.
  22. Knorr-Cetina K (2001) Objectual practice. In: Shatzki TR Von Savigny E Knorr Cetina K (eds) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Abingdon: Routledge, 184– 197.
  23. Lash S (2001) Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society 18(1): 105– 120.
  24. Lash S (2007) Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation. Theory Culture & Society 24(3): 55– 78.
  25. Markham A (2012) Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous Internet contexts. Information, Communication and Society 15(3): 334– 353.
  26. Marwick AE boyd d (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imaged audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114– 133.
  27. Metcalf J Crawford K (2016) Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data and Society. Epub ahead of print 1 June 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Roberts C Innes M Preece A et al (2017) After Woolwich: Analyzing open source communications to understand the interactive and multi-polar dynamics of the arc of conflict. British Journal of Criminology. Epub ahead of print 7 April 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azx024. · DOI
  29. Ruppert E Law J Savage M (2013) Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 22– 46.
  30. Savage M Burrows R (2009) Some further reflections on the coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology 43(4): 765– 775.
  31. Scourfield JB Colombo G Burnap P et al (2016) The response in Twitter to an assisted suicide in a television soap opera. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 37(5): 392– 395. 27040127
  32. Sloan L (2017) Who tweets in the United Kingdom? Profiling the Twitter population using the British Social Attitudes Survey 2015 Social Media & Society 3(1): 1–11.
  33. Sloan L Morgan J (2015) Who tweets with their location? Understanding the relationship between demographic characteristics and the use of geoservices and geotagging on Twitter. PLoS ONE 10(11): 1– 15. PMC4636345 26544601
  34. Sloan L Morgan J Burnap P et al (2015) Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data. PLoS ONE 10(3): 1– 20. PMC4346393 25729900
  35. Sloan L Morgan J Williams ML et al (2013) Knowing the tweeters: Deriving sociologically relevant demographics from Twitter. Sociological Research Online 18(7): 1– 11.
  36. Tinati R Halford S Carr L et al (2014) Big data: Methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis. Sociology 48(4): 663– 681.
  37. Urry J (2000) Mobile sociology. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 185– 203.
  38. Van Dijck J (2013) The Culture of Connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Weeks J (2007) The World We Have Won. London: Routledge.
  40. Williams ML (2006) Virtually Criminal: Crime, Deviance and Regulation Online. London: Routledge.
  41. Williams ML (2015) Towards an ethical framework for using social media data in social research. Paper presented at Social Research Association Workshop, Institute of Education, UCL, London, 15 June.
  42. Williams ML Burnap P (2015) Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology 57(2): 320– 340.
  43. Williams ML Burnap P (2016) Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: A case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology 56(2): 211– 238.
  44. Williams ML Burnap P Sloan L (2017) Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology 57(2): 320– 340.
  45. Williams ML Edwards A Housley W et al (2013) Policing cyber-neighbourhoods: Tension monitoring and social media networks. Policing and Society 23(4): 461– 481.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, Matthew L
ORCID
Venue
Sociology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-05-26
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
1149-1168
ISSN
  • 0038-0385 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8684
DOI
10.1177/0038038517708140
PMC
PMC5718335
OpenAlex
W2607331267
Cited by
423
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
79.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sociology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J009903/1, ES/K008013/1, ES/M500422/1)
  • ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton (RES-576-47-5001-01/512589112)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
tweets, research ethics, informed consent, social media data, context collapse, online disinhibition effect, user perception, algorithmic classification, researcher reflexivity, online survey data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review