Click here to download

Web society e qualità della ricerca: temi e controversie
Journal Title: SALUTE E SOCIETÀ 
Author/s: Eleonora Venneri 
Year:  2014 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  20 Pg. 71-90 FullText PDF:  543 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SES2014-003006
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

Social responsibility and integrity are essential dimensions of the quality of scientific research. Starting from a general introduction aimed to specify the meaning of the two concepts, theoretically contiguous and closely related, the paper seeks to circumscribe their implications for scientific research in the web society by highlighting the critical issues that can potentially impair their heuristic and epistemological value.
Keywords: Social responsibility; contextual integrity; anonymity; privacy; virtual communities; research ethics

  1. WiersmaW.(2012).TheValidityofSurveys:OnlineandOffline.Testodisponibilealsito:
  2. Anscombe G.E.M. (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy, Philosophy, vol. 33, n. 124 (January, 1958), pp. 1-19,, DOI: 10.1017/S003181910003794
  3. Allen C. (1996). What’s wrong with the “Golden Rule”? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace, The Information Society, vol. 12, 2: 175-188,
  4. Anderson B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso
  5. Bakardjieva M. e Feenberg A. (2000). Involving the Virtual Subject, Ethics and Information Technology, 2: 233-240,, DOI: 10.1023/A:101145460653
  6. Barth A., Datta A. e Mitchell J.C., Nissenbaum H. (2006). Privacy and contextual integrity: framework and applications, in IEEE, 2006 IEEE Symposium on Se curity and Privacy: (S & P 2006): proceedings: 21-24 May, 2006, Berkeley/Oakland, California. Los Alamitos, California: IEEE computer society.
  7. Bassett E. e O’Riordan K. (2002). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model, Ethics and Information Technology,, DOI: 10.1023/A:102131912520
  8. Baym N.K. e Markham A.N. (2009). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research?. In: Markham A.N., Baym N.K. (Eds), Internet Inquiry. Conversations About Method. Los Angeles: SAGE
  9. Beauchamp T.L. e Childress J.F. (1999). Princìpi di etica biomedica. Firenze: Le Lettere
  10. Bingo S. (2011). Of Provenance and Privacy: Using Contextual Integrity to Define
  11. Third-Party Privacy, The American Archivist, vol. 74, n. 2: 506-521 Bird S.J. (2006). Research Ethics, Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research, Science and Engineering Ethics. 12(3): 411-412,, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-006-0040-
  12. Boccia Artieri G. (2012). Stati di connessione. Pubblici, cittadini e consumatori nella (Social) Network Society, Milano: FrancoAngeli
  13. Borcea-Pfitzmann K., Pfitzmann A. e Berg M. (2011). Privacy 3.0 : = Data Minimization + User Control + Contextual Integrity, Information Technology 01/2011, 53:34-40,, DOI: 10.1524/itit.2011.062
  14. Bosch X. e Titus S.L. (2009). Cultural challenges and international research integrity, The Lancet, vol. 373, n. 9664, February 21, 2009,, DOI: 10.1016/S01406736(09)60379-
  15. Bovens M. (2007). Public Accountability. In: Ferlie E., Lynn L.E., and Pollitt C., editor, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford University Press,, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.001.000
  16. Boyle T. e Cook J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: a commentary on Conole and Dyke, ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology. vol. 12, n. 3, September 2004,
  17. Bromberg H. (1996). Are MUDs Communities? Identity, Belonging and Consciousness in Virtual Worlds. In: Shields R., editor, Cultures of Internet. Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies. London: Sage
  18. Brownsword R. (2012). Il consenso informato nella società dell’informazione, Salute e Società, anno XI, 3,, DOI: 10.3280/SES2012-00301
  19. Bruckman A. (2002). Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet, Internet Research Ethics, 4: 217-231,, DOI: 10.1023/A:102131640927
  20. Capurro R. e Pingel C. (2002). Ethical Issue of Online Communication Re-search, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 4, n. 3: 189-194,, DOI: 10.1023/A:102137252702
  21. Carusi A. e Jirotka M. (2009). From data archive to ethical labyrinth. Qualitative Research, vol. 9, n. 3: 285-298,, DOI: 10.1177/146879410910503
  22. Castells M. (2002). La nascita della società in rete. Milano: Università Bocconi Editore
  23. Cavanagh A. (1999). Behaviour in Public?: Ethics in Online Ethnography. Cy-bersociology Magazine, n. 6: Research Methodology Online, 1999. Testo disponibile al sito:, [ultimo accesso: 7/3/2014]
  24. Cipolla C. (1997). Epistemologia della tolleranza. Milano: FrancoAngeli Cipolla C. (2013). Perché non possiamo non essere eclettici. Il sapere sociale nella web society. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  25. Cipolla C., a cura di (2002). La spendibilità del sapere sociologico. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  26. Cipolla C. e Lombi L. (2013). Postfazione. Mixed research ed e-methods: una prospettiva quasi obbligata verso il futuro. In: Cipriani R., Cipolla C. e Losacco G., a cura di, La ricerca qualitativa fra tecniche tradizionali ed e-methods. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  27. Cipriani R. (2012). Per una sociologia dell’immaginario, Sociologia della Comunicazione. 44: 149-152,, DOI: 10.3280/SC2012-044008CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(2001).GREENPAPER.PromotingaEuropeanframeworkforCorporateSocialResponsibility,Brussels
  28. Conole G., Dyke M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology. 12, 2: 113-124,, DOI: 10.1080/096877604200021618
  29. Deutskens E., de Ruyter K. e Wetzels M. (2006). An Assessment of Equivalence Between Online and Mail Surveys in Service Research, Journal of Service Research, vol. 8, n. 4: 346-355,, DOI: 10.1177/109467050628632
  30. Dewey J. (1946). Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Co. (trad. it. Logica, teoria dell’indagine. Torino: Einaudi, 1974)
  31. Draghi-Lorenz R. (2001). La natura affettivo-relazionale del giudizio etico, Informazione Psicologia Psicoterapia Psichiatria, n. 41-42: 38-41. Testo disponibile al sito:, [ultimo accesso: 1/03/2014]
  32. Edwards A., Housley W. e Williams M., Sloan L., Williams M. (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,, DOI: 10.1080113645579.2013.77418
  33. Emerton M. (2003). Ethical and Methodological Problems in Online Research, Institute of Social Change and Critical Inquiry, University of Wollongong, Australia. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 4/03/2014] Ess C. and the AoIR ethics working committee (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 2/05/2014]
  34. Final Report ESF e ORI First World Conference on Research Integrity: Fostering Responsible Research. (Lisbon, Portugal, 16-19 September 2007). Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 5/03/2014]
  35. Frankel M. e Siang S. (1999). Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet. American Association for the Advancement of Science. A Report of a workshop, June 10-11, Washington, DC. Testo disponibile al sito:[ultimo accesso: 2/3/2014]
  36. Galesi D. (1998). Un investimento che è coinvolgimento. In: Cipolla C., a cura di, Il ciclo metodologico della ricerca sociale. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  37. Gibson J.J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In Shaw R. and Bransford J., editors. Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
  38. Goffman E. (1971). Il comportamento in pubblico. L’interazione sociale nei luoghi di riunione. Torino: Einaudi Grinyer A. (2009). The ethics of the secondary analysis and further use of qualitative data. Social Research Update, 56 (4). Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 13/5/2014]
  39. Hardey M. (2002). Life beyond the screen: embodiment and identity through the internet. The Sociological Review, vol. 50, n. 4: 570-585,, DOI: 10.1111/1467954X.0039
  40. Herring S. (1996). Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations. The Information Society, vol. 12, n. 2: 153-168,
  41. Ho L., Jaewon C. e Kyung Kyu K. (2013). Impact of Anonymity (Unlinkability, Pseudonymity, Unobservability) on Information Sharing, PACIS 2013 Proceedings. Paper 70. Testo disponibile al sito:[ultimo accesso: 7/5/2014]
  42. Illingworth N. (2001). The Internet Matters: Exploring the Use of the Internet as a Research Tool. Sociological Research Online, vol. 6, n. 2,, DOI: 10.5153/sro.60
  43. Kendall L. (1999). Recontextualising “Cyberspace”: Methodological Considerations for On-Line Research. In Jones S., editor. Doing Internet Research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net. London: Sage
  44. King S.A. (1996). Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, vol. 12, n. 2: 119-128,
  45. Kriz J. (1992). Senso comune e tecniche di ricerca. In Marradi A. e Gasperoni G., a cura di, Costruire il dato 2. Vizi e virtù di alcune tecniche di raccolta delle informazioni. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  46. Lecaldano E. (2012). Una nuova concezione della responsabilità morale per affrontare le questioni dell’etica pratica del XXI secolo. In: Buongiorno F., Pinazzi A., a cura di, Etica della responsabilità: applicazioni e problemi, Lo Sguardo, n. 8, 2012(I): 31-46
  47. Lévy P. (1996). L’intelligenza collettiva. Per un’antropologia del cyberspazio. Milano: Feltrinelli
  48. Lévy P. (1997). Il virtuale. Milano: Raffaello Cortina
  49. Maldonado T. (1997). Critica della ragione informatica. Milano: Feltrinelli
  50. Mann C. e Stewart F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. London: Sage
  51. Markham A. e Buchanan E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 2/5/2014]
  52. Marres N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: on intervention in digital so-cial research, broadly conceived. The Sociological Review, 60-S1: 139-165,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02121.
  53. Mignone M. (2004). Problemi etici nella ricerca occulta, in Corposanto C., a cura di. Metodologia e tecniche non intrusive nella ricerca sociale. Milano: FrancoAngeli
  54. Mitra A., Cohen E. (1999). Analysing the Web: directions and challenges, in Jones S., editor. Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Exam-ining the Net. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
  55. Morin E. (2005). Lo spirito del tempo. Roma: Meltemi National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (April 18, 1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Testo disponibile al sito: guidance/belmont.html [ultimo accesso: 7/3/2014]
  56. Nissenbaum H. (1998). Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public. Law and Philosophy, 17, 5-6: 559-596. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 5/3/2014]
  57. Nissenbaum H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Re-view. vol. 79, n. 1, February 2004: 119-158. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 4/3/2014]
  58. Nissenbaum H. (2009). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press
  59. Nissenbaum H. (2011). A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online, Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Fall 2011, vol. 140, n. 4: 32-48,, DOI: 10.1162/DAED_a_0011
  60. Norman D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. London: Basic Books
  61. Norman D. (1998). The invisible computer. Boston: MIT Press
  62. Palumbo M. (2002). La riflessione metodologica e la verità. In: Cipolla C., a cura di. Il nodo di Gordio: verità e sociologia. Milano: FrancoAngeli Panke S. (2010). Making Sense of Social Networks: An Interview with Zizi Papacharissi, Educational Technology & Change Journal. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 4/3/2014]
  63. Pfitzmann A. e Hansen M. (2006). Anonymity, Unlinkability, Unobservability, Pseudonymity, and Identity Management – A Consolidated Proposal for Terminology (Version v0.28 May 29, 2006). Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 5/05/2014]
  64. Rasmussen K. (2008). General Approaches to Data Quality and Internet-generated Data. In: Fielding N., Lee R. & Blank G. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London: SAGE,, DOI: 10.4135/9780857020055.n
  65. Reeder K. e Macfadyen L.P., Roche J., Chase M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in cyberspace: participation, patterns and problematics. Language Learning & Technology, May 2004, vol. 8, n. 2: pp. 88-105. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 1/3/2014]
  66. Rodham K. e Gavin J. (2006). The ethics of using the internet to collect qualitative research data. Research Ethics Review, vol. 2, n. 3: 92-97,, DOI: 10.1177/17470161060020030
  67. Rogelberg S.C., Spitzmüeller C., Little I., e Reeve C.L. (2006). Understanding response behaviors to an online special topics organizational satisfaction survey. Personnel Psychology, 59, Issue 4: 903-923,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00058.
  68. Rosenberg A. (2010). Virtual World Research Ethics and the Private/Public Distinction. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, vol. 3(1), 12/2010: 23-37. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 3/3/2014] Sassen S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  69. Savage M. e Burrows R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41, 5: 885- 899,, DOI: 10.1177/003803850708044
  70. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore. Testo disponibile al sito: www.singaporestatement. org/downloads/singpore%20statement_A4size.pdf [ultimo accesso: 10/3/2014]
  71. Stahl B., Jirotka M. e Eden G. (2013). Responsible Research and Innovation in Information and Communication Technology: Identifying and Engaging with the Ethical Implications of ICTs. In: Owen R., Heintz M. and Bessant J., editors.
  72. Responsible Innovation, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Stahl B.C. (2013). Responsible research and innovation: The role of privacy in an emerging framework. Science and Public Policy, 1-9,, DOI: 10.1093/scipol/sct06
  73. Sudweeks F., Simoff S. (1999). Complementary explorative data analysis: The reconciliation of quantitative and qualitative principles. In Jones S.G., editor. Doing Internet Research. Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net. London: Sage
  74. Suler J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 7, n. 3: 321-326,, DOI: 10.1089/109493104129129
  75. Thomas J. (1996). Introduction: a debate about the ethics of fair practice for collecting social science data in cyberspace. The Information Society, vol. 12, n. 2: 107-118,
  76. Thompson L.F. e Surface E.A. (2007). Employee surveys administered online: Attitudes toward the medium, nonresponse, and data representativeness. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 241-261,, DOI: 10.1177/1094428106/29469
  77. Toulmin S. (1972). Human Understanding. Vol. 1: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  78. Von Schomberg R. (2011). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011,, DOI: 10.2777/58723.Testodisponibilealsito:,[ultimoaccesso:10/3/2014
  79. Wang R.Y., Storey V.C. e Firth C.P. (1995). A Framework for Analysis of Data Quality Research. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 7, Issue 4: 623-640,, DOI: 10.1109/69.40403
  80. Waskul D. (1996). Considering the Electronic Participant: Some Polemical Observations on the Ethics of On-Line Research, The Information Society, 12, 2: 129-140,
  81. Wellman B., Hogan B. (2004). The Immanent Internet. In McKay J., editor. Netting Citizens: Exploring Citizenship in a Digital Age. Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press
  82. Whelan T.J. (2008). Antecedents of anonymity perceptions in Web-based surveys. Paper presented at the 23rd annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Testo disponibile al sito: [ultimo accesso: 7/5/2014]
  83. Wicker S.B., Schrader, D.E. (2011). Privacy-Aware Design Principles for Information Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, n. 2: 330-350,, DOI: 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2073670
  84. Wright Mills C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press (trad. it. L’immaginazione sociologica. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1973)
  85. Yardley S.J., Watts K.M., Pearson J. e Richardson J.C. (2014). Ethical Issues in the Reuse of Qualitative Data: Perspectives From Literature, Practice, and Participants. Qualitative Health Research, 24,1: 102-113,, DOI: 10.1177/104973231351837

Eleonora Venneri, in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 3/2014, pp. 71-90, DOI:10.3280/SES2014-003006


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content