This paper examines the consequences of a culture of “personal ethics” when using new methodologies, such as the use of social media (SM) sites as a source of data for research. Using SM research as an example, this paper explores the practices of a number of actors and researchers within the “Ethics Ecosystem” which as a network governs ethically responsible research behaviour. In the case of SM research, the ethical use of this data is currently in dispute, as even though it is seemingly publically available, concerns relating to privacy, vulnerability, potential harm and consent blur the lines of responsible ethical research behaviour. The findings point to the dominance of a personal, bottom-up, researcher-led, ‘ethical barometer’ for making decisions regarding the permissibility of using SM data. We show that the use of different barometers by different researchers can lead to wide disparities in ethical practice - disparities which are compounded by the lack of firm guidelines for responsible practice of SM research. This has widespread consequences on the development of shared norms and understandings at all levels, and by all actors within the Ethics Ecosystem, and risks inconsistencies in their approaches to ethical decision-making. This paper argues that this governance of ethical behaviour by individual researchers perpetuates a negative cycle of academic practice that is dependent on subjective judgements by researchers themselves, rather than governed by more formalised academic institutions such as the research ethics committee and funding council guidelines.

中文翻译：

---

道德生态系统：个人道德、网络治理和管理社交媒体研究数据使用的监管参与者

本文研究了使用新方法时“个人道德”文化的后果，例如使用社交媒体 (SM) 网站作为研究数据的来源。以 SM 研究为例，本文探讨了“道德生态系统”中许多参与者和研究人员的做法，该生态系统作为一个网络来管理对道德负责的研究行为。在 SM 研究的情况下，这些数据的道德使用目前存在争议，尽管它似乎是公开可用的，但与隐私、脆弱性、潜在伤害和同意相关的担忧模糊了负责任的道德研究行为的界限。调查结果表明，个人、自下而上、研究人员主导的“道德晴雨表”在决定是否允许使用 SM 数据方面占主导地位。我们表明，不同研究人员使用不同的晴雨表会导致伦理实践的巨大差异——由于缺乏负责任的 SM 研究实践的坚定指导方针，这种差异更加严重。这对道德生态系统内所有参与者和各级共享规范和理解的发展产生了广泛的影响，并可能在他们的道德决策方法上存在不一致的风险。本文认为，个体研究人员对伦理行为的这种治理使学术实践的负循环长期存在，这种循环依赖于研究人员自己的主观判断，而不是由更正式的学术机构（如研究伦理委员会和资助委员会指南）来管理。