Financial Priorities under Decentralization

This paper examines the need for standards to resolve ethical conflicts related to qualitative, on-line research. Practitioners working in the area of qualitative research gauged the breadth and depth of this need. Those practitioners identified several key ethical issues associated with qualitative on-line research, and felt that there should be a common ethics code to cover issues related to Internet research. They also identified challenges associated with the profession’s acceptance of a unified code. The paper concludes by offering guidance in developing and implementing such a code. Computer technology has emerged as a fascinating and potentially valuable qualitative data-collection tool (Harris, 1996; Miller, 1994; Nadilo, 1998). Marketing researchers have already begun conducting on-line focus groups and ethnographic studies of electronic communities (e.g., Giese and Kauffman, 1998). “By definition, an on-line focus group is conducted entirely on-line – everything from recruitment and screening (which the recruiter does via e-mail) to the moderation of the discussion itself ” (Solomon, 1996, p. 9). Various cyberenvironments have been used for this type of research including: e-mail, Usenet, electronic bulletin boards, Listservers, MUDs (multi-user dungeons), live chats (e.g., Internet Relay chat) and chatrooms (Morris and Ogan, 1996). In their rush to use the Internet, some researchers have strayed from sound research practices, taken shortcuts, or used techniques that would not be acceptable in traditional research (Nadilo, 1998). For example, there is a strong temptation to recruit on-line participants from panels. While recruiting costs are lowered, there is the danger of creating a group of professional focus group groupies – a practice condemned by the Qualitative Research Consultants of America (Fuller, 1997). Of special concern is researchers’ on-line interactions with participants. The problems that loom large relate to the confidentiality associated with marketing research. After consumers are questioned on-line, is it ethical to subsequently target them by personalized advertising constructed to match their data base profiles? Qualitative research, which entails more motivational and contextual probing than does survey research, is highly personal, so there is great Ethics and the Internet: Issues Associated with Qualitative Research Journal of Business Ethics 33: 271–286, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Denise E. DeLorme George M. Zinkhan Warren French Denise E. DeLorme is an Assistant Professor of Advertising at the University of Central Florida. Her particular research interests are integrated marketing communications, qualitative methods, and research ethics. Her publications include articles in the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Marketing Communications, and conference proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. George M. Zinkhan is the Coca-Cola Professor of Marketing and Department Head at the University of Georgia. He has served as the editor of the Journal of Advertising and the book review editor for the Journal of Marketing. His most recent co-authored book is: Electronic Commerce: The Strategic Perspective. He currently teaches in the area of commercial uses of the Internet. Warren French is the I. W. Cousins Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Georgia. He has served on both the Board of Directors and the Internet Ethics Task Force of the Marketing Research Association. He is coauthor of the book Practical Business Ethics and has published articles on business ethics and research ethics in this journal as well as in other journals. reliance on the integrity of the researcher. Also, since it tends to be a holistic process, highly personal profiles of group members emerge from the interviews. Because the Internet blurs the traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, ethical concepts like privacy and dignity of participants are more difficult to determine ( Jones, 1994; McQuarrie, 1995; Eisenberg, 1996; Parks, 1997). But, it is unclear to what extent existing ethical standards adequately cover this new vehicle for obtaining information. Particular ethical concerns There are a number of specific qualitative on-line research practices involving participants that may be suspect in terms of ethics – which for the pragmatic purpose of this article has as its goal the enhancement of societal well-being (Frankena, 1973). The first concern involves observing, recording, copying, or quoting consumers’ words and activities without their knowledge or permission (McQuarrie, 1995, Newhagen 1996). In cyberspace, consumers and respondents can never really be sure who has access to their information ( Jones, 1994). “Theoretically, a message posted on an Internet group is accessible by anyone who has access to the Internet” (McQuarrie, 1995, p. 6). In some cyber-environments, anyone can “lurk” and peruse the group discussion without being identified (Granitz and Ward, 1996). Thus, it can be difficult for interviewers to protect the focus groups members’ comments from prying computer hackers. Another potential problem involves the ability to track and link data sources in a way that reveals more about participants than what they might voluntarily reveal. To what extent should researchers use the Internet’s capabilities to combine data about consumers without their knowledge? A third concern with qualitative on-line research is the potential for researchers and participants to alter or fake their identities, personalities, or roles during on-line interactions (Roller, 1996). The researcher-informant relationship, a crucial element of qualitative research, is altered to some degree in an electronic environment. For example, if researchers are conducting a focus group on the Internet and assume that they have recruited male participants, would it acceptable for the moderator to pretend to be a man with the expectation that participants will respond more openly? In other words, how does deception in-person compare to deception on-line? It is also possible that an informant can become another “self ” on-line. Will informants be more or less forthcoming in a cyberspace focus group room when disclosing motivations and personal experiences?