Read The Following Two Cases: Ethical Issues In ✓ Solved

Read the following two cases: Ethical Issues in

Read the following two cases: Ethical Issues in Using the Internet in Research—1 and Ethical Issues in Using the Internet in Research—2.

Address the following: Identify three ethical issues that might arise in the conduct of the research present in the cases. For each, explain why it is an ethical issue and how it may pose a challenge in conducting the research.

Select one of the issues you identified and describe how you would address this issue to comply with both legal and professional standards of practice.

Paper For Above Instructions

The ethical landscape of conducting research on the Internet presents challenges that differ from traditional laboratory or field settings. When researchers analyze cases titled Ethical Issues in Using the Internet in Research—1 and Ethical Issues in Using the Internet in Research—2, they must consider how digital environments shape participants’ rights, researcher responsibilities, and the governance structures that apply to data collection, storage, and reporting. This paper identifies three core ethical issues likely to arise in these online research contexts, explains why each is ethically problematic, and discusses practical challenges to conducting the research. It then selects one issue and proposes a robust response plan aligned with legal and professional standards of practice.

First, privacy and confidentiality in online research pose a fundamental ethical challenge. The Internet creates pervasive data traces—profiles, search histories, forum posts, timestamps, and metadata—that can render individuals identifiable even when researchers intentionally anonymize data. Publicly accessible materials may be construed as public data, yet many online environments elicit expectations of privacy or special sensitivity around certain topics. The Belmont Report emphasizes respect for persons, which includes protecting individuals from harm and respecting their autonomy in decisions about participation and data use (Belmont Report, 1979). The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct likewise require safeguarding confidentiality and handling information in ways that minimize harm (American Psychological Association, 2017). In practice, researchers must assess whether data drawn from online sources constitutes private information and, if so, implement safeguards such as de-identification, restricting access, and using aggregated or synthetic data where feasible (Bryman, 2016; Creswell, 2014). At a minimum, researchers should consider obtaining IRB review for digital data collection plans, even when data are publicly available, to ensure a formal privacy risk assessment and a documented plan for data handling (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018).

Second, informed consent and the ethical obligation to respect autonomy are nuanced in online contexts. Traditional consent processes assume a direct, interactive exchange with participants; online studies may involve passive data collection, secondary data use, or observations of behavior without explicit opt-in from every individual. The Common Rule requires that researchers obtain informed consent or seek appropriate waivers when consent is impracticable or when the research involves minimal risk and the rights and welfare of participants are protected (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). In digital environments, researchers must carefully describe the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and data handling in plain language, and provide accessible avenues for withdrawal where possible (Flick, 2018; Patton, 2015). If deception or withholding information is considered for methodological reasons, researchers must ensure that the deception is justified by its value, debrief participants afterward, and minimize potential harm in line with APA ethics guidance (APA, 2017).

Third, data security and retention are ethical concerns central to protecting participants and maintaining public trust in research. Internet-based data collection often involves large-scale, sensitive datasets that require robust technical safeguards against breaches, unauthorized access, and misuse. A rigorous data management plan, informed by the Belmont principles of beneficence and justice, should address data encryption, trusted storage environments, access controls, audit trails, and clear retention/destruction timelines (Bryman, 2016; Neuman, 2014). Sharing data with collaborators or depositing datasets in repositories necessitates data use agreements and, where applicable, controlled-access mechanisms to preserve confidentiality and minimize re-identification risks (Shenton, 2004). Researchers should also consider the legal landscape surrounding data protection—such as opt-in consent for data processing, data localization requirements, and platform terms of service—to ensure compliance with both professional standards and applicable laws (Creswell, 2014; Bryman, 2016).

To illustrate how these three issues interrelate, consider a hypothetical analysis of online discourse on health topics across public forums and private groups. Privacy concerns arise when forum posts, though public, are intertwined with real identities or when users expect privacy in a closed group setting. Informed consent issues surface if data are collected from posts without obtaining any form of consent or debriefing about how the data will be used. Data security measures become essential when sensitive health information is inferred from text or metadata, raising questions about data retention and potential cross-referencing with other data sources. Each issue demands careful consideration of ethical principles, risk assessment, and practical safeguards to minimize harm while enabling meaningful research (Fisher, 2010; Johnson & Christensen, 2019).

Among these three issues, this paper selects privacy and confidentiality as the central concern for a detailed compliance plan. A robust response combines legal compliance with professional best practices across multiple domains. First, determine whether data collected from online sources are identifiable or contain sensitive information that would trigger heightened protections; obtain IRB review to determine whether informed consent can be obtained or whether a waiver is appropriate under the Common Rule (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). Second, implement data minimization by limiting collection to information essential to the research questions and applying differential privacy techniques or data aggregation where possible to further protect individuals (Bryman, 2016; Shenton, 2004). Third, de-identify data by removing explicit identifiers and employing pseudonymization for transcripts or posts, while maintaining a secure key management process separate from analytic data. Fourth, enforce strict data security protocols: encrypted storage, access restrictions to research personnel only, secure data transfer methods, and regular security audits. Fifth, establish a transparent data governance plan that specifies who can access the data, how long data will be stored, and how data will be destroyed after the project concludes. Sixth, comply with platform terms of service and applicable laws governing data collection, retention, and user privacy, and document risk assessments and mitigations in the research protocol (APA, 2017; Belmont Report, 1979). Finally, communicate clearly with participants or stakeholders about data use, provide options for withdrawal when feasible, and ensure that published results are reported in ways that do not enable re-identification or harm to individuals (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2015).

In sum, ethical online research hinges on balancing the integrity of scientific inquiry with the protection of participants’ privacy and autonomy. By foregrounding privacy/confidentiality, consent, and data security within a principled framework—grounded in the Belmont Report, APA ethics, and the Common Rule—researchers can navigate the unique challenges of digital environments while upholding professional standards and legal obligations. This approach supports legitimate inquiry and preserves trust in scholarly work conducted over the Internet (Flick, 2018; Neuman, 2014; Bryman, 2016).

References

• Belmont Report. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). The Common Rule: 45 CFR 46. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE.
• Babbie, E. (2016). The Practice of Social Research. Cengage.
• Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (4th ed.). Sage.
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. doi:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201