IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v74y2023i1p67-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What scholars and IRBs talk when they talk about the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research

Author

Listed:
  • Huichuan Xia

Abstract

How scholars and IRBs perceive and apply the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research was an open and largely neglected question. As crowd work becomes increasingly popular for scholars to implement research and collect data, such negligence, signaling a lack of attention to the ethical issues in crowd work‐based research more broadly, seemed alarming. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 32 scholars and IRB directors/analysts in the United States to inquire into their perceptions and applications of the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research. We found two dilemmas in applying the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research, namely the dilemma between the dehumanization and expected autonomy of crowd workers, and the dilemma between the monetary incentive/reputationall risks and the conventional notion of research benefits/risks. We also compared the scholars' and IRBs' ethical perspectives and proposed our research implications for future work.

Suggested Citation

  • Huichuan Xia, 2023. "What scholars and IRBs talk when they talk about the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 67-80, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:74:y:2023:i:1:p:67-80
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24724
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24724?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boas, Taylor C. & Christenson, Dino P. & Glick, David M., 2020. "Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 232-250, April.
    2. Aleksejs Busarovs, 2013. "Ethical Aspects of Crowdsourcing, or is it a Modern Form of Exploitation," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 3-14.
    3. H. Bassi & L. Misener & A. M. Johnson, 2020. "Crowdsourcing for Research: Perspectives From a Delphi Panel," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    4. Kathryn Sharpe Wessling & Joel Huber & Oded Netzer, 2017. "MTurk Character Misrepresentation: Assessment and Solutions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(1), pages 211-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu Ding & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Dominique M. Hanssens & Kamel Jedidi & John G. Lynch & Donald R. Lehmann, 2020. "The past, present, and future of measurement and methods in marketing analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 175-186, September.
    2. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Park, Keunhyun & Chamberlain, Brent & Song, Ziqi & Nasr Esfahani, Hossein & Sheen, Jeff & Larsen, Teresa & Long Novack, Valerie & Licon, Carlos & Christensen, Keith, 2022. "A double jeopardy: COVID-19 impacts on the travel behavior and community living of people with disabilities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 24-35.
    4. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    5. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    6. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Robert Kubinec & Haillie Na‐Kyung Lee & Andrey Tomashevskiy, 2021. "Politically connected companies are less likely to shutdown due to COVID‐19 restrictions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2155-2169, September.
    8. Junjuan Du, 2023. "Rational or Impulsive? Early Backers’ Investment Behavior in Agri-Food Crowdfunding from 4P–4C Perspectives," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    9. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    10. Ji Yun Lee & Fangjiao Ma & Yue Li, 2022. "Understanding homeowner proactive actions for managing wildfire risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(2), pages 1525-1547, November.
    11. Karadimitriou, Nikos & Magnani, Giacomo & Timmerman, Richard & Marshall, Stephen & Hudson-Smith, Andy, 2022. "Designing an incubator of public spaces platform: Applying cybernetic principles to the co-creation of spaces," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Luka Koning & Marianne Junger & Joris Hoof, 2020. "Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(2), pages 257-285, November.
    13. Martínez-López, Francisco J. & Li, Yangchun & Su, Wan & Feng, Changyuan, 2019. "To have or have not: Buy buttons on social platforms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 33-48.
    14. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Marissa L. Varade & Francis Choi & Brian Helmuth & Steven Scyphers, 2022. "Catching versus Counting: Comparing the Pro-Environmental Attitudes, Behaviors, and Climate Concerns of Recreational Fishers and Citizen Scientists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Connection to Nature Boosts Adolescents’ Mental Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Buccieri, Dominic & Javalgi, Raj G. & Cavusgil, Erin, 2023. "Role of opportunity creation between reconfiguration and innovation: Insights from emerging market international new ventures," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4).
    18. Koo, Minjung & Dai, Hengchen & Mai, Ke Michael & Song, Camilla Eunyoung, 2020. "Anticipated temporal landmarks undermine motivation for continued goal pursuit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 142-157.
    19. Beknazar-Yuzbashev, George & Stalinski, Mateusz, 2022. "Do social media ads matter for political behavior? A field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    20. Pallant, Jessica L. & Karpen, Ingo O. & Sands, Sean J., 2022. "What drives consumers to customize products? The mediating role of brand experience," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:74:y:2023:i:1:p:67-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.