The RESPECT Guidelines: Ethical,
Cultural, and Meta-Ethical
Considerations
Charles Ess
Chair, ethics working committee, Association of Internet
Researchers;
Committee for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Interdisciplinary Studies, Drury University
cmess@drury.edu
www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html
Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche
It is the Age of comparison! That is its pride – but also what it
suffers from. Let us not fear this suffering! On the contrary,
we want to understand the task – set before us by the Age – as
comprehensively as we can. And so the world following ours
(Nachwelt) will bless us. That world will be as much beyond
the original but utterly closed off cultures of isolated peoples,
as it is also beyond the culture of comparison: but that world
will also look back with gratitude on both kinds of culture as
honorable antiquities.
-Nietzsche,
Menschliches,
Allzumenschliches,
Erstes
Hauptstück, 23. In Rolf Elberfeld, “Einleitung. Vom Nutzen
komparativer Ethik für die Gegenwart,” in Rolf Elberfeld and
Günter Wohlfart (eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute leben
zwischen den Kulturen (Académie du Midi), 12. 2002. Cologne:
edition chora.
Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche
Es ist das Zeitalter der Vergleichung! Das ist sein Stolz, - aber
billgerweise auch sein leiden. Fürchten wir uns vor diesem
Leiden nicht! Vielmehr wollen wir die Aufgabe, welche das
Zeitalter uns stellt, so gross verstehen, als wir nur vermögen:
so wird uns die Nachwelt darob segnen, - eine Nachwelt, die
ebenso sich über die abgeschlossenen originalen VolksCulturen hinaus weiss, als über die Cultur der Vergleichung,
aber auf beide Arten der Cultur als auf verehrungswürdige
Alterthümer mit Dankbarkeit zurückblickt.
-- Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Erstes
Hauptstück, 23. In Rolf Elberfeld, “Einleitung. Vom Nutzen
komparativer Ethik für die Gegenwart,” in Rolf Elberfeld and
Günter Wohlfart (eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute leben
zwischen den Kulturen (Académie du Midi), 12. 2002. Cologne:
edition chora.
Outline
1. An ethicist’s approach
Preliminary overview
Deontology vs. utilitarian approaches + “other”/global ethics
Initial overview of Guidelines in terms of deontology [D] / utilitarian
[U] bases
Where D / U approaches converge: 2 [4, 6,]
Where D / U approaches conflict: 11[ 5]
Where D / U approaches are distinct:
1 [U] / 15-18 [D]  possible tensions in Guidelines?
2. Convergences / Divergences in Inter/national law: 2
3. Cultural Perspectives: 3, 5
4. Meta-ethical concluding questions
[5. Suggestions for a Global Research Ethics]
1. An Ethicist’s First Perspective
The guidelines can be helpfully understood to be divided as
follows:
Utilitarian starting point: research must balance benefits and
costs (1)
Professional ethics - especially as oriented towards deontological /
basic rights / respects perspectives, 2 - 5
Professional Ethics - especially as concomitant with basic research
methodology and the professional ethics codes of specific
disciplines (sociology, anthropology, etc.), 6 - 14
Human Subjects Protections (basic - deontological - values
/rights emphasized in post-WWII Western research ethics
codes), 15 - 18
1. An Ethicist’s First Perspective
Human Subjects Protections: post-WWII Western
research ethics codes, e.g.
Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health,
Department Of Health And Human Services. 1991. Code of Federal
Regulations. 1991. Title 45, Part 46, “Protection of Human Subjects.”
<http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/45cfr46.php3>.
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving
Humans (Natural Sciences and Engineering Resarch Council of Canada)
<www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/policy.htm>
American Psychological Association, “Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Codes of Conduct, 2002”
<www.apa.org/ethics/codecompare.html>
See: AoIR ethics report for more extensive list
<www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism,
and “other”/global ethics
Utilitarianism and Deontology: two interwoven but distinct
approaches to ethical decision-making
Definitions: UTILITARIANISM
… an ethical theory claiming that what makes behavior
right or wrong depends wholly on the
consequences….utilitarianism affirms that what is
important about human behavior is the outcome or
results of the behavior and not the intention a person
has when he or she acts” (36: emphasis added, CE).
(From: Deborah Johnson, Computer Ethics, 3rd. ed. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism,
and “other”/global ethics
UTILITARIANISM
At work in the RESPECT Guidelines, beginning with 1
and throughout.
Central utilitarian issues in research ethics:
Risks of harm to subjects, including
psychological harm,
breach of trust, expectations established with research
subjects, especially through
failure to monitor the consequences of research activities,
including, e.g., appearance of research in mass media
vis-à-vis possible research benefits (for whom / over
what period of time, etc.)
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
Definitions: DEONTOLOGY
…put[s] the emphasis on the internal character of the act
itself,” and thus focuses instead on “the motives,
intentions, principles, values, duties, etc., that may guide
our choices” (Johnson 2001, 42: emphasis added, CE).
 language of rights – including rights fundamental to
Human Subjects Protections, i.e., autonomy, privacy,
confidentiality, informed consent, freedom from
unnecessary harm(s), etc.
 at least some values, principles, or duties require (near)
absolute endorsement – no matter the consequences.
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
Intersects
with cultural/national differences:
Scandinavian Guidelines (NESH, Swedish Research
Council), EU Data Privacy Protection Guidelines 
deontological emphases on individual rights
vs.
U.S. law, policy, as more oriented towards “the
market,” stressing corporate/business rights over
individuals (e.g., “shrink-wrap” licenses) 
utilitarian emphases
See aoir ethics document for discussion
<www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
But that’s not all… Virtue Ethics
…from Plato and Aristotle. The English word “virtue” in this context
translates the Greek arete - better translated as “excellence.” In this
tradition, “…ethics was concerned with excellences of human
character. A person possessing such qualities exhibited the
excellences of human goodness. To have these qualities is to
function well as a human being” (Johnson 2001, 51).
Contemporary feminist ethics / ethics of care /
dialogical ethics / “open source” ethics
[AoIR, RESPECT processes]
[recovery of premodern traditions]
[movement towards global dialogue, ethics]
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
Contemporary feminist ethics / virtue ethics / ethics of
care / dialogical ethics / “Good Samaritan ethics,” etc.:
(From Carol Gilligan and others): women as a group tend
to emphasize the details of relationships and caring,
choosing those acts that best sustain the web of
relationships constituting an ethical community
– in contrast with men who as a group tend to rely more on
general principles and rules.
NOT an either / or – but a both / and
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
 Ethics of Care
Reinforced especially by Postmodern critiques of Modern
rationalism and the Enlightenment (if not Western) project of
discerning ethical universals valid for all times / peoples /
circumstances
(see: Margaret Emerton, Ethical and Methodological Problems in Online
Research. Available from the author: <me21@uow.edu.au>)
Contemporary examples:
R. Capurro & C. Pingel. 2002. Ethical Issues of Online Research.
Ethics and Information Technology (4:3).
<www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/projects_ethics.html>
D. Berry. 2003. Internet Research: Privacy, Ethics and Alienation –
An Open Source Approach. <www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hbp17/>
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
Ethics of Care // Confucian ethics, etc.
 movement towards global dialogue, ethics, e.g.
Chenyang Li. Revisiting Confucian Jen Ethics and Feminist
Care Ethics: A Reply. Hypatia: a Journal of Feminist
Philosophy. Winter, 2002. 130-140.
Henry Rosemont, Jr. Rationality and Religious Experience:
The Continuing Relevance of the World’s Spiritual
Traditions. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court, 2002.
Charles Ess. Forthcoming. Computer-Mediated Colonization,
the Renaissance, and Educational Imperatives for an
Intercultural Global Village. In Robert Cavalier (ed.), The
Internet and our Moral Lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and “other”/global ethics
How do the RESPECT guidelines “fit” these
(Western) ethical categories – especially
deontology and utilitarianism?
Where D / U approaches converge : 2
[also: 4, 6]
Where D / U approaches conflict: 11, 5
Where D / U approaches are distinct:
1 [U] / 15-18 [D]
 possible tensions in Guidelines?
Where D / U approaches converge:
2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect
for national and international law
Deontological: both professional ethics standards and
inter/national law may codify absolute values - first
of all, those basic to Human Subjects Protections
codes:
Autonomy (freedom)
 rights to informed consent / confidentiality anonymity / protection against undue risk of
harm
[These are articulated here in Guidelines 15 - 18]
Where D / U approaches converge:
2. Professional integrity must be balanced with
respect for national and international law
Deontologist: just law – rooted in (quasi- or “soft”)
universals of human rights, etc. – cannot be
disobeyed. (Cf. Martin Luther King, Letter)
Utilitarian: breaking the law has
consequences/”costs”.
Convergence: the utilitarian and the human rights
deontologist might agree that it is best not to
break those laws designed to protect basic
human rights.
Where D / U approaches conflict:
[PROFESSIONAL / METHODOLOGICAL ETHICS (6 - 14)]
11. Researchers and commissioners should reflect on the
consequences of research engagement for all participants
Utilitarian - we reflect on these consequences in order to
determine if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Deontological - are there some costs that are so high that no
research benefit can justify them?
Example: in a chatroom that functions as a support group for
incest survivors – both the overt and covert presence of a
researcher might destroy the sense of privacy, intimacy,
and trust that is crucial for the support group to function.
What possible research outcomes are worth this risk /
cost to the chatroom participants?
Where D / U approaches conflict:
Deontological:
In case of a conflict between probable harm to a human
being and the outcomes of the study - the harm to a
human being is to be avoided, even at the cost of the
study.
Utilitarian:
It is arguable that if great benefit is to be gained from the
study, then even high costs to individual human beings ranging from psychological and reputational harms to
one’s very life - can be justified.
Where D / U approaches conflict:
Utilitarian Analogies: sacrifice of the few for the many in
warfare (bombing of Coventry)
medicine (Tuskeegee Institute Syphilis Study)
Deontological counterpoints:
the morality of fascism - including the medical
experiments in the Nazi death camps;
the morality of racism – as the Tuskeegee study
shows.
Where D / U approaches conflict:
[PROFESSIONAL / METHODOLOGICAL ETHICS (6 - 14)]
6. Researchers should address the concerns of relevant
stakeholders and user groups
Utilitarian - such concerns may be undertaken as part of a “costbenefit” analysis
Problem for the utilitarian: who are the relevant stakeholders and
how is their membership in the “moral community” to be
determined?
Deontological - in some cases, basic rights may come into play
(e.g., to confidentiality, anonymity, etc.) that will limit - or, in
worst-case scenarios, eliminate a research design.
National / International: These rights are construed differently
depending on national law and traditions of ethical decisionmaking
Where D / U approaches are distinct:
1. The research aims of any study should both
benefit society and minimise social harm
Comment: Utilitarian:“cost-benefit” analysis
Research which offers no probable benefit to society
cannot be justified.
Any probable / possible benefits must be balanced by
clear and complete awareness of possible /
probable costs.
Where D / U approaches are distinct
Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
18. Research participants should be protected from undue
intrusion, harm or distress
Ethical: 1. This is the “prime directive” of Human Subjects
Protections, as rooted in
(a) Hippocratic oath - do no harm;
(b) reactions against WWII experimentation and
(c) U.N. and other declarations of human rights
Michelfelder, Diane. 2001. The Moral Value of Informational Privacy in
Cyberspace. Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2), 129-135.
Walther, Joseph B. 2002. Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research:
Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. Ethics and
Information
Technology,
4
(3),
205-216.
Available
online
<http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_walther.html>.
Where D / U approaches are distinct
Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
18. Research participants should be protected from undue
intrusion, harm or distress
Ethical: It is on this primary right that the other rights in these
guidelines (15 - 18) are rooted.
2. Whether harm and intrusion are ever justified depends on
(a) possible benefits of research, and
(b) whether one takes a primarily
deontological
or
utilitarian
ethical stance.
Where D / U approaches are distinct
Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
15.Participation in research should be voluntary
Ethical: rests on the basic right of human beings to autonomy /
free choice, respect for that free choice (Enlightenment /
Kant) – deontology
Alternatives: Habermasian / feminist perspective-taking and an
“ethic of care” would apply empathy, “Golden Rule,”
principle of non-alienation: would the researcher, if in the
position of the research subject, wish to have his/her
freedom and sense of autonomy curtailed – for any reason?
(see Berry, 2003; cf. M. Barkardjiava and A. Feenberg, 2001.
Involving the Virtual Subject: Conceptual, Methodological
and Ethical Dimensions. Ethics and Information Technology 2
(4), 233-240.)
Where D / U approaches are distinct
Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
15. Participation in research should be voluntary
Cultural / communicative: Modern Western notions of freedom
and autonomy tend towards atomistic individualism; but
Pre-modern / non-Western notions of the human person emphasize greater
role of the community in shaping decisions - an important consideration
especially with immigrant groups;
appearance and voice of “authority” vary from culture to culture - what
might not seem coercive in one context may be experienced as such in
another;
Hence: for some peoples / cultures, the community will play the equivalent of
a “gatekeeper “role, whose authority and permission will also be crucial.
Examples: Asian, Indigenous cultures (see Ess
<www.drury.edu/ess/herg/CATaC-CC.ppt>; cf. Hofstede, Marg
Emerton)
2. Convergences / Divergences in
Inter/national Law
2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect
for national and international law
Which laws apply to internet research?
E.U. Data Privacy Protection acts: more deontological, favoring the
individual
citizen’s
protections
over
other
interests
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/law_en.
htm>
NESH Guidelines: very deontological, favoring the individual citizen
and his/her close relations’ protections over other interests
<www.etikkom.no/Engelsk/NESH>
Contra U.S. laws (more utilitarian, market-based, favoring the benefit
of business and thus the larger economy over individual interests
in privacy, etc. - see AoIR Guidelines for discussion)
2. Convergences / Divergences in
Inter/national Law
2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect
for national and international law
Which laws apply to internet research?
Further complications: are there strong analogies vs.
disanalogies between offline / online research – and
thus between
the laws / policies / practices of offline human
subjects protections and
Online research?
3. Cultural: where relevant
(especially guidelines 3-5) - what
differences in foundational cultural
values are important for
researchers to note?
Does Culture Make a Difference?
(see <www.drury.edu/ess/herg/CATaC-CC.ppt>)
Europe
Middle East
Asia
indigenous
peoples
white middle
class males
vis-à-vis …
females /
AfricanAmericans /
Hispanics /
AsianAmericans /
Native
Americans
(Stewart et al,
2001)
Rey’s study of
German-,
French-, Italianspeaking Swiss
Israel (Dahan,
1999);
Kuwait
(Wheeler, 2001)
Singapore;
Japan (Heaton,
2001);
Malaysia (Abdat
& Pervan, 2000)
Indonesia
(Rahmati, 2000);
Thailand
(Hongladarom,
2001)
Malaysia Kelabit
(Harris et al,
2001);
Philippines
(Sy, 2001);
South Africa
(Postma,
2001)
(2001)
Contrast/Conflict
US
“NO THANKS!”
eKiribati (Solomon
Islands)
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
3. Research must be commissioned and conducted
with respect for and awareness of gender
differences
Deontological or utilitarian? Where significant gender differences exist, will
these be overridden for the sake of a study - or respected, even at the cost
of sacrificing the study?
Comment: understanding of what constitutes harm
may have a gendered component U.S. example of “rape in cyberspace” in which words
constituted harm for the female victim - vs. legal
definitions of harm as physical harm (“real rape”)
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
3. Research must be commissioned and conducted
with respect for and awareness of gender
differences
Cultural issues - Contrasts between
Gender-based access to CMC technologies, in terms of
“cultural capital” - education, language facility, etc. - needed for
successfully utilizing CMC technologies, and
socio-economic / infrastructure differences (crudely: white middleclass male technology/communication style vis-à-vis “everyone
else”)
See: Stewart, Concetta M., Stella F. Shields, and Nandini Sen. 2001. Diversity in OnLine Discussions: A Study of Cultural and Gender Differences in Listservs. In
Ess (ed.), Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural Global
Village, 161-186. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect
for under-represented social groups and the avoidance of
marginalisation or exclusion of these
Cultural contrasts – different cultural groups use / respond to
media, including new media, in diverse ways: the choice of
media for research thus itself may contain biases,
“affordances” that inadvertently exclude specific groups.
 Applies as well to immigrant communities:
Mary Wilson. 2002. Communication, organizations and
diverse populations. In F. Sudweeks & C. Ess (eds.),
Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication
2002, 69-88. Murdoch, Western Australia: School of
Information Technology, Murdoch University.
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
Cultural contrasts – different cultural groups use / respond to
media, including new media, in diverse ways: the choice of
media for research thus itself may contain biases,
“affordances” that inadvertently exclude specific groups.
“...IT tends to be instrumental in Western hegemonic encroachment
into the Filipino lifeworld…” (Peter Sy, 2001)
“Most Internet sites pose a danger to our education system and our
culture, in particular pornography sites and sites that promote
consumerism to our students.”
-- Sardjiman (in de Kloet, 2002)
“The Internet is profoundly disrespectful of tradition, established
order and hierarchy, and that is very American.”
-- Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of Foreign Affairs
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with
respect for under-represented social groups and the
avoidance of marginalisation or exclusion of these
Cultural - Contrasts between
Acceptability of public / private communication between
sexes (Islamic countries/Muslim populations):
unsolicited e-mail from a male researcher to a female subject
could be very problematic - especially if discovered by the
family!
Research on male-female online communication must be
undertaken with recognition that “cultural conservatives”
see such communication itself as undermining traditional
cultural morés.
“CULTURAL CLUSTER”: GUIDELINES 3-5
5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with
respect for under-represented social groups and the
avoidance of marginalisation or exclusion of these
Cultural – Contrasts
See: Technologies of Despair and Hope: CMC in the Middle
East, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
Vol. 8, issue 2, 2003, <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/>,
especially
Deborah Wheeler, Kuwaiti Youth and the Net
<http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue2/wheeler.html>
4. Meta-ethical Concluding
Considerations?
A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments on the
part of
Individual researchers / participants
Oversight bodies (IRB’s in the U.S.; Research Ethics Boards
in Canada; National Health and Medical Research Council
in Australia; UK)
National laws /policies / practices?
Diverse cultural value systems and ethical decision-making
traditions?
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments?
Prevailing strategy: ethical pluralism as a middle ground between
ethical relativism: “anything goes” – because (it is argued /
assumed) there are no universally valid values, etc.
[Problem: cannot distinguish between Hitler and Mother
Teresa, fascism and democracy, etc.]
ethical dogmatism: only a single view / value / belief is valid
– and thus must be imposed monolithically /
homogenously upon all peoples / times / places /
circumstances
Ethical pluralism: some views are arguably better than others –
and application of ethical norms in praxis is always
contextual and multi-valent.
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments?
Ethical pluralism: shared values/norms  diverse
interpretations / applications / judgments (phronesis).
Example 1: normative value of expectations of privacy vis-à-vis is
informed consent for recording (audio/video) public spaces?
U.S. context: no expectations
of privacy (vs. psychologist’s
office, etc.)
Therefore, no informed
consent required (Walther,
2002)
Norway: people do not expect
to be recorded in public
without consent.
Therefore, informed consent
required (Elgesem, 2002)
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?
Joel Reidenberg:
while there is global convergence on what he calls the
First Principles of data protection - there are clear
differences in how these First Principles are
implemented, i.e., through
"either liberal, market-based governance
or socially-protective, rights-based governance."
(Resolving Conflicting International Data Privacy
Rules in Cyberspace, STANFORD LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 52 (2000):1315-1376], 1315)
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?
First Principles:
1) Data quality (accuracy)
2) Transparency / openness of processing
(purposes)
3) Treatment of sensitive data, including data re.
Health, race, religious beliefs, sexual life
4) Enforcement mechanisms
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?
First Principles
U.S.: liberal, marketbased governance
E.U.: socially-protective,
rights-based governance
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?
First Principles: exemplified in U.K. Younger
Committee, 1972 (!) – organizations
1. Are accountable for personal information they obtain;
2. Should identify the purposes for which the information is
processed at or before the time of collection;
3. Should only collect personal information with the knowledge
and consent of the individual (with exceptions);
4. Should limit the collection of personal information for
purposes other than those identified, except with the consent
of the individual;
5. Should retain information only as long as necessary;
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?
First Principles: exemplified in U.K. Younger
Committee, 1972 (!) – organizations
6. Should ensure that personal information is kept accurate,
complete, and up to date;
7. Should protect personal information with appropriate security
safeguards;
8. Should be open about its policies and practices and maintain
no secret information systems
9. Should allow data subjects access to their personal
information, with an ability to amend if necessary.
(Riedenberg, 1327)
E.U. citizens enjoy a priority on individual privacy vis-avis business interests
-i.e., a deontological emphasis on respect for persons
in the form of privacy protections
-vs.
U.S. favoring business interests over individual privacy:
no such privacy protections: rather, businesses are
allowed to establish their own privacy policies,
requiring the consumer to (a) inform him/herself of
the policy and then (b) decide whether to agree or
“opt-out”
- i.e., a utilitarian emphasis on the good of the many
(minimal state intervention  greater economic
efficiency) over possible violations of individual rights
the European model is one in which
…omnibus legislation strives to create a complete set of
rights and responsibilities for the processing of personal
information, whether by the public or private sector.
First Principles become statutory rights and these
statutes create data protection supervisory agencies to
assure oversight and enforcement of those rights. Within
this framework, additional precision and flexibility may
also be achieved through codes of conduct and other
devices. Overall, this implementation approach treats
data privacy as a political right anchored among the
panoply of fundamental human rights and the rights are
attributed to “data subjects” or citizens. (1331f.)
By contrast, the United States is distinctive in its approach,
in which
… the primary source for the terms and conditions of
information privacy is self-regulation. Instead of relying
on governmental regulation, this approach seeks to
protect privacy through practices developed by industry
norms, codes of conduct, and contracts rather than
statutory legal rights. Data privacy becomes a market
issue rather than a basic political question, and the
rhetoric casts the debate in terms of “consumers” and
users rather than “citizens.” (1332)
- i.e., a consequentialist position, one that emphasizes
economic benefit at large over possible risks to individual
privacy.
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
See: D. Elgesem. 2002. What is Special about the Ethical Issues in
Online Research? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3). 195203.
<www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_elgesem.html>
J. Walther. 2002. Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research:
Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. Ethics
and Information Technology, 4(3).
<www.nyu.edu/proejcts/nissenbaum/ethics_walther.html>
C. Ess. 2002. Introduction, special issue on Internet Research
Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 177-188.
<www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_ess.html>
4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?
B. Global Ethical Perspectives?
Information Ethics Resources:
U.K.: Luciano Floridi, Jeff Sanders. Information Ethics
Group, Oxford Computing Laboratory
<web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/research/areas/ieg>
U.S.: International Association for Computing and
Philosophy
<www.iacap.org>
Germany: Rafael Capurro (Stuttgart), International Center
for Information Ethics
<icie.zkm.de>
Australia: Centre for Applied Ethics and Public Policy
<www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/cappe/>
5. Suggestions for a global
research ethics
A. Coherencies between Confucian /
Aristotelian / feminist conceptions of
human excellence (arete / junzi) as
virtue ethics
 syntheses of both utilitarian and
deontological approaches
5. Suggestions for a global research
ethics
B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of
perspective-taking?
i) Never treat a research subject online in a way that you
would not be comfortable explaining to that person
face-to-face.
ii) (Habermasian/feminist perspective taking - or: love
your neighbor as yourself): Before deciding on a
research design and the specific ethical elements
you will follow (e.g., either to ask for informed
consent or not, whether to use pseudonyms or not,
etc.) - ask: if you were the research subject, how
would you want to be treated?
5. Suggestions for a global research
ethics
B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of
perspective-taking?
Critique: the researcher cannot place
himself/herself in the place of the subject - in
part because of the diversity of (rapidly
changing) venues.
Allen, Christina. 1996. What’s Wrong with the
“Golden Rule”? Conundrums of Conducting
Ethical Research in Cyberspace. The
Information Society 12 (2), 175 –187.
5. Suggestions for a global research
ethics
B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of
perspective-taking?
My critique of the critique:
perhaps - but taken to the logical extreme,
this becomes a relativism that would also
mean that whatever we learn from the
subjects as different from the
observer/scientist may have no relevance
to any other subjects!
5. Suggestions for a global research
ethics
Such guidelines, finally, are not ethically
"homogenous" or univocal
but pluralist – or, in Michael Walzer's term, "thin":
these can be interpreted and applied in
different ways through the diverse "lenses" of
defining cultural beliefs, practices, traditions,
etc.
 (Aristotle’s pros hen and analogical equivocals
 pluralist traditions of ethics in both East
(Confucius) and West (Socrates / Plato /
Aristotle)
5. Suggestions for a global research
ethics
moral arguments are “thin” when they are shorn of their particular
histories and other cultural embodiments which make them
integral parts of a cultural entity. These are the parts that make
the arguments “thick.”
…. when Americans watched Czechs carry placards bearing words
like ‘Truth’ and ‘Justice,’ they could relate immediately to the
situation and sympathized with the marchers. However, when
the arguments are at the local level, as to which version of
distributive justice should be in place, there might well be
disagreements, and Americans may find themselves disagreeing
with the particular conception of justice which is eventually
adopted. The sympathetic feeling one feels across the Ocean is
part of the “thin” morality, but the localized and contextualized
working of those moral concepts is part of the “thick” (Walzer
1994, 1-19, in Hongladarom, 2001).