Abstract
The rapid growth in the widespread acceptance and usage of the Internet and the ease of creating online communities have brought advantages in terms of swift access to information alongside ethical problems interrelated with the dark side of the workings of these communities. Relevant research approaching ethics and the dark side of online communities has received widespread publication in a diverse set of journals with a wide variety of objectives and readers that has left its academic contribution broadly fragmented. To help shrink this gap in the literature, this study, through undertaking a systematic review, seeks to map the research on ethics and the dark side of online communities to grasp where the literature has come from and where it is going and, consequently, provide opportunities for future research. This study applied a bibliometric approach based on analysis of the bibliographic coupling with the manual coding of documents to examine the literature on the ethics and the dark side of online communities to set out a holistic framework of its different facets. The content and the thematic analysis of 53 studies identified four thematic groups: quality of the information in online communities, virtual identities, safety in online communities, and the content of online communities. The findings of this study also highlight the various shortcomings in the literature on the ethics and dark side of online communities and lead to some research questions that justify future academic research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The accelerated and exponential growth of the Internet and, consequently, the online communities has led the most diverse researchers to make discoveries and advances in highly varied scientific fields, such as healthcare (Brady et al. 2016), psychology (Roberts 2015), management and marketing (Barrett et al. 2016). For each respective field, there have been systems and services proposed focused on the needs and interests of their users (Frost and Massagli 2008; Johnston et al. 2013).
Irrespective of such growth, the advantages of this rapid access to the information that online communities provide, both to their users and their researchers, have drawn concerns over issues around the ethics and safety (Hajli and Lin 2016) associated with these communities (Brady et al. 2016; Burnett and Burnett 2019). Such issues essentially derive from the growing piracy of software (Yu et al. 2015), which inevitably compromises the trust both of organisations and in organisations (Ouakouak and Ouedraogo 2019), given this calls into question the credibility of the information made available by online communities (Tseng 2022).
Furthermore, society’s growing dependence on information technologies combined with the increasing scale, frequency, and sophistication of cyberattacks committed by criminals operating on the Darknet (Gatzweiler et al. 2017). Another problem these communities face interrelates with online aggression, such as cyberbullying and the “calls” for suicides, among other challenges that arise for their users and that they end up following (Xu et al. 2016).
However, despite the rising concerns over the ethics and the dark side of online communities, we may confirm that there is hitherto no systematic overview of the literature that would enable the identification of which questions relate to ethics and the dark side of online communities while also grasping their origins and future trends. Therefore, this motivates the need to review the research and provide an integrated, systematic structure to the literature on ethics and the dark side of online communities, constituting our objective here. Hence, in this study, we apply bibliometric analysis to explore the relational nature of the creation of knowledge in the field of ethics and the dark side of online communities and identify the different subfields to this theme and characterise them according to their underlying assumptions, the research design, contributions to the field and future research trajectories.
Thus, the present study has four research objectives (RO):
RO1: Analysing the profile of the existing relevant research literature on ethics and the dark side of online communities.
RO2: Identifying and assimilating the thematic approaches in the existing research on ethics and the dark side of online communities.
RO3: Understanding the gaps in the literature to define future lines of research, and.
RO4: Developing an integrated research structure that assists in understanding the profile of the ethics and the dark side of online communities.
To address this study’s first objective (RO1), we first explain how we sourced the studies congruent with the terms of the conceptual boundaries, the database selected, and keywords applied in conjunction with the search and pre-selection criteria. Subsequently, we establish the research profile of the study and present the statistics on frequency and sources of publication, their geographic focus, the methods deployed, sampling techniques and theoretical justifications. We achieved the second objective (RO2) by extracting the 53 articles aligned with our study objective after reading all articles included in our database. To complete this study’s third objective (RO3), we applied bibliographic coupling to the 53 articles on ethics and the dark side of online communities and the literature gaps to define future research lines. Finally, the fourth objective (RO4) is met by developing a framework that integrates and explains the different study themes.
Our research makes two essential contributions. Firstly, this sets out a quantitative-based methodology on the current research trends into the ethics and the dark side of online communities. This is a step forward in identifying growth and changes in the research field on the ethics and the dark side of online communities and on which future research may focus to deepen this field of knowledge further. Secondly, we contribute to the research on this field, reporting its internal structure and exploring the trends, patterns, and trajectories to culminate in a future research agenda. At the general field level, we put forward an organised framework that provides a balance of progress in this field of study. While we encounter a series of very encouraging developments in the literature on the ethics and the dark sides of online communities, most notably the proliferation of various levels of analysis and the diversity of the research questions therein approached, multiple issues still need to be researched. At the level of the subfields of ethics and the dark side of online communities, we convey how these define future research trajectories.
2 Literature review
The formulation of ethical codes for online communities has been identified as a critical priority for Internet researchers (Mann and Stewart 2000; Trevisan and Reilly 2014). At the early stage, the primary focus was on developing universal codes so that they could be applied to all forms of online media. With the birth of Web 2.0, the section of the World Wide Web that revolves around user-generated content further cast doubts on the feasibility and operationalisation of such universal codes (Trevisan and Reilly 2014). In addition, the exponential growth of user-generated content and the blurring of boundaries between public and private spheres in the online world raise unprecedented ethical concerns (Marwick 2011; Baym and Boyd 2012). The AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2012) recognises the existence of ‘gray areas’ that continue to exist in ethical decision-making. It provides researchers with a series of questions to consider, such as creating rigid guidelines on how to resolve specific ethical issues, inviting researchers to remain flexible, being responsive to diverse contexts, and being adaptable to changing technology.
With the increased use of social networking sites, people increasingly interact online, discussing and sharing experiences and sometimes very personal information (Ridderstrøm 2003). The main concerns generally raised, especially when research needs to collect information online, revolve around the notions of privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, and narrative appropriation (Brownlow and O’Dell 2002). Several researchers have discussed more generally, such as: what is considered public and private. What are the researcher’s responsibilities and obligations in this process? (Elgesem 2002; Weeden 2012).
Mason (1986) looked at information as a component of individuals’ intellectual capital, focusing on specific ethical issues related to the sharing, collecting, and distributing information about individuals or generated by individuals. It is essential to discuss the ethical implications of information privacy (i.e., the disclosure of personal information (Paris et al. 2013), accuracy (i.e., the fidelity of information disclosed, collected, and maintained as records) (Trevisan and Reilly 2014), ownership (i.e., the protection of intellectual property rights through various mechanisms) (Weeden 2012), and accessibility (i.e., the understanding of information and how people have access to it) (Graham 2012). Thus, ethical issues should be of concern for researchers doing online research and authorities that wish to engage with their citizens through social media (Paris et al. 2013).
3 Methodology
To structure the existing research, the authors adopted and replicated the systematic review approach described by several authors (Webster and Watson 2002; von Brocke et al. 2015; Gupta et al. 2018; Kraus et al. 2022). Consequently, the procedure involves three stages: (1) Planning the review, (2) Carrying out the review and (3) Reporting the review with this final stage set out in the “Results” section.
3.1 Planning the review
The first systematic literature review stage required the drafting of the protocol (Fig. 1) for the following stages. The Review Protocol starts by searching the literature for the definition of the terms applicable to determining sets of data chosen to select the maximum number of studies able to respond to the research questions formulated.
The source of the relevant articles complied for this study was the online Web of Science™ Core Collection (WoS) database, the property of the company Clarivate Analytics. The data for this study were collected and compiled from the Web of Science (WoS) online database. Hence, WoS provides a comprehensive view of worldwide research production (Ferreira et al. 2021). In the subsequent phase, we defined the criteria for inclusion and exclusion (Table 1).
3.2 Conducting the review
In order to identify the relevant articles, the search applied the following expressions whether included in the title, the abstract or the keywords:
TS = (“ethic*” or “dark-side*” or “dark side*”) and ("online communit*" or "internet communit*" or "web communit*" or "virtual communit*" or "metaverse*") |
The search for these key terms in the database selected by the review protocol resulted in 175 documents. We refined this data set to include only English language articles and obtained a set of 131. Reading and content analysis led to a set of 53 relevant studies for our research. The research took place in April 2022. Figure 2 illustrates the study selection process, based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2 presents a descriptive summary of the articles included in the present study. The articles result from the work of 103 authors (107 author participations), and 18 were sole authored.
3.3 Methods
The literature review applied the bibliometric methodology (e.g., Zupic and Čater 2014), thus, defining the flows of research work into a scientific mapping by bibliometric methods. Furthermore, bibliometric analyses serve to evaluate the state of research on a global scale (Mutschke et al. 2011), consisting of the application of quantitative and statistical analysis to publications such as articles and their respective citations, deployed as a means of evaluating the research performance in keeping with how the approach provides data on all the activities ongoing in a scientific field and summarising this data offers a broad perspective on the research activities and their impacts (Hawkins 1977; Osareh 1996; Thomson Reuters 2008).
Despite co-citation analysis having held a predominant position in bibliometric analysis, there has recently been the resurgence of bibliographic coupling to the detriment of this historical preference for co-citation analysis (Boyack and Klavans 2010), given how this allows for the inclusion of more recent publications to evaluate potential patterns and trends among the publications (Leydesdorff and Vaughan 2006). To understand this field in greater depth, the authors carried out the qualitative codification and thematic analysis of the sample established (n = 53). Various authors defend that, depending on the level of detail required, the number of publications needed to study the trends and evolution in a field of study may be in the region of 50–100 articles (Walsh and Renaud 2017; Walsh and Kalika 2018).
To graphically represent the bibliographic coupling analysis, the authors made recourse to network theory and determined the clusters that took place according to the methodology applied by Waltman et al. (2010). Waltman et al. (2010) developed a modularity-based clustering with a resolution parameter where small clusters can always be identified by choosing a sufficiently large value for the resolution parameter. This clustering technique is based on the most recent developments in bibliometrics and has been used and validated by other researchers in the field of bibliometrics (van Eck and Waltman 2017). We carried out all calculations through Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Washington, USA), VOSviewer version 1.6.14 (van Eck and Waltman 2010), and Bibliometrix (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017) software programs.
4 Results
The structure of Sect. 3 is as follows. Section 3.1 details the characteristics of the articles included in this systematic literature review. Hence, the first analytical process returns (1) the chronological evolution of the number of articles published and those generating the greatest number of citations. Section 3.2 presents the bibliographic coupling results that reveal the conceptual structure of the articles included in this study, thereby establishing the dominant themes.
4.1 Article characteristics
Figure 3 summarises the trend in the number of articles and the citations referring to research on questions relating to the ethics associated with online communities. The average year of publication stood at 2015.7.
The research interest in the dark side of online communities essentially began in the last decade, despite the publication of the first article dating back to 2004 and with over 50% of the articles published since 2016 (no.=32, 60.4%). In terms of the number of citations, the articles incorporated into this study received an average of 67.2 citations to form an overall total of 3,563 citations. Table 3 presents the ten articles with the largest number of citations.
The articles with the largest number of citations in this set of articles come from Boyd and Crawford (2012) (2,363 citations), Posey et al. (2010) (223 citations), Hajli and Lin (2016) (124 citations), Flicker et al. (2004) (82 citations) and Barrett et al. (2016) (80 citations).
To structure the research into the ethics and dark side of online communities, we also organised the articles studied based on the countries of affiliation hosting studies of the different topics (Table 4). The United States (47 articles), the United Kingdom (28 articles) and China (18 articles) are the most active countries in terms of publications in this field.
4.2 Bibliometric analysis
Based on the bibliographic coupling matrix, we determined the shared reference matrix for these 53 publications to establish the networks of connection between the articles and the clusters. The clusters took place according to the methodology applied by Waltman et al. (2010). The clustering technique that we used determines the relatedness of publications based on direct citation relationships.
Figure 4 displays the article networks based on the shared reference matrix data and the publications’ respective groupings ascertained by cluster analysis (Table 5).
4.3 Cluster 1 (n = 17): Quality of information of online communities
Flicker et al. (2004) identify how the growth in utilising the data available in online communities has brought ethical problems, especially in studies approaching Internet-based discussion forums. Therefore, directives and guidelines are needed to guarantee ethical conduct in this type of research. These authors state that three ethical problems may emerge: registering research participants, protecting participants from risk or harm, and interlinking public and private data sources. Bowker and Tuffin (2004) also defend that online data, constantly available, inevitably raises the need to reflect on ethical questions. Taking up this concern, Roberts (2015) identifies ethical questions associated with research into online communities as follows: (1) public/private spaces; (2) authorship versus research participants as human beings; (3) informed consent; (4) anonymity and pseudonyms; (5) confidential research; (6) false identities; and (7) the quality of the data obtained. Hence, before advancing with qualitative research in online communities, researchers hold the ethical responsibility to identify and evaluate possible risks and benefits for the community and its members. These ethical issues also reflect in the retrospective study by Paechter (2013) of an online community that provides support during divorce cases. In turn, Schultze and Mason (2012) conclude that an increasing number of Internet users are simply bots. Hence, the need to review the ethical directives in effect for research on the Internet.
According to Trevisan and Reilly (2014), Internet research ethics should remain permanently informed about the disciplinary perspectives of those studying online communities. Therefore, Internet researchers should ground their practices in the already established ethics in their respective subject fields to approach these questions “centred on the human being”, and these questions become still more predominant when related to healthcare issues. Gustafson and Woodworth (2014) recommend that principles of concern deriving from well-being, respect for persons and justice always require application in research projects studying the data of online communities.
According to Brady et al. (2016), online privacy represents a nebulous concept and the distinction between what individuals are comfortable with and what relates to subjective factors. This applies to such an extent that Germain et al. (2018) provides evidence of the importance of reflecting on the perceptions of participants about just what is public, preserving anonymity and protecting the participants from harm. Paris et al. (2013) also convey the relevance of these ethical questions to researching online communities, especially when the study takes place through government institutions. Guaranteeing the privacy of community members while also complying with the legal responsibilities set by the government is, above all, an act of balancing.
Kantanen and Manninen (2016) identify some fundamental questions regarding the ethics of online community research: publicness versus the privacy of the community; the definition of research into human beings; recruitment of participants; informed consent; and ethical questions associated with observing virtual communities and reporting and disseminating the research results.
This thus conveys how, despite the growing utilisation of data from online communities, there is no standard set of ethics for carrying out ethnographic studies of the platforms used by these communities (Hair and Clark 2007; Wheeler 2017). The study of the participants on these platforms prior to data collection and study is thus fundamental to ensure a higher quality of the data subsequently collected. In this sense, Stvilia et al. (2019) maintain that the fundamental question for ethics is guaranteeing the quality of information gathered in online communities. Hence, this requires deploying information and research management systems, which should involve the researchers within the scope of guaranteeing the quality of information. Within this line of thinking, Liu (2021) identify artificial intelligence as a solution for mitigating the ethical problems related to studying the data of online communities. Yeku (2020) raises another ethical research question related to online communities’ fraud and deceptions.
4.4 Cluster 2 (n = 18): Virtual identities
Given the growth of the Internet, it is fundamental to educate people on the difficulties in determining right and wrong, which may be offset by the new technologies between online and offline environments (Griffiths and Light 2008; O’Neil, 2015). Additionally, individuals may grasp this understanding of “right and wrong” through the benefits they accrue from participating in these online communities, which adopt their specific policies guaranteeing their ethical conduct or, on the contrary, the negative returns received for their participation in communities that do not enact such policies (Gummerus et al. 2017; Jones and Giles 2022). Steinmetz (2012) defends that researchers need to adopt complete ethnographic methodologies to effectively observe these phenomena in keeping with the growth of online communities. Therefore, this author supports that three specific facets of virtual ethnography require consideration: space and time, identity and authenticity, and ethics. The Internet is a globalised and instantaneous means in which space and time collapse, identity becomes more playful, and ethics become more tenuous; incorporating these aspects is crucial to studying online communities. Kafai et al. (2019) warn of the importance of “the normalisation” of terms such as deceit and fraud introduced by individuals with an absence of ethical characteristics in online communities and that young persons with unstable moral values also tend to normalise. This, thus, refers to the cyber influence of destructive ethics (Burnett and Burnett 2019; Baeva 2020; Cheng and Yu 2022a; Cheng and Yu 2022b). “Death groups” that call on young persons to commit suicide, as well as the “aggressive communities” associated with acts of aggression and violence in institutions, now extend to cyberbullying (Breitsohl et al. 2022).
Boyd and Crawford (2012) verify how various types of academic specialists (computation scientists, physicians, economists, mathematicians, political scientists, bio-information specialists, and sociologists) increasingly request access to the enormous quantities of information produced by and about people, things and interactions. These authors arrive at the following questions: will these large scales of data help develop better tools, services and public goods? Or will it trigger a new wave of incursions into privacy and invasive marketing? Will this analysis return a better understanding of online communities and political movements? Or will this simply serve to identify demonstrators and annul their discourses? These are questions posed by Big Data to the research community and society. Within this scope is the increasingly prominent practice of “sharenting” (parents and children sharing their online representations). On this, Blum-Ross and Liningstone (2017) study how parents define the boundaries of their digital “selves” and how they justify the “story they have to tell”. The authors conclude that these bloggers deal with profound ethical dilemmas. In representing their identities as parents, they inevitably make public aspects of their children’s lives and thus introduce risks against which they are, paradoxically, responsible for protecting. Another question about data sharing stems precisely from the facility where individuals may share personal data on social networks as their structures favour and facilitate such sharing (Watanabe 2007; Rawassizadeh 2012; Kafai et al. 2019). Rawassizadeh (2012) defends a fundamental need to limit the availability of the personal data of users of this type of online community.
Regarding the creation of online identities, Caiani and Parenti (2009) studied the utilisation of the Internet among extreme right-wing organisations in Italy to create a collective identity. They then conclude that these organisations use the Internet to boost the number of extremist websites and disseminate their propaganda and fundraising for political campaigning. These considerations receive support from Arfini et al. (2019), who confirm the recourse to online communities by extremist ideology groups that, during crises, foster ethically dubious consequences.
4.5 Cluster 3 (n = 7): Safety in online communities
Hajli and Lin (2016) maintain a fundamental need to study the safety of social networking sites. Social network sites have challenged ethical questions on the security and privacy of user information. This situation has led to user concerns over their privacy and their control over the information they share. These authors conclude that perceived control over sharing information among users is a significant factor. Another issue related to safety stems from the piracy of software and the security questions that such actions may cause to their users (Yu et al. 2015). Ouakouak and Ouedraogo (2019) approach the influence of commitment and organisational trust in sharing and using knowledge before concluding that both affective dedication and professional trust generate positive influences on sharing and utilising knowledge, while personal trust and commitment to continuity do not. These authors also report that ethical business practices moderate the relationship between sharing and using knowledge.
Regarding safety, the ongoing pandemic since 2020 has brought new challenges for online communities (Tseng et al. 2022). Tseng et al. (2022) demonstrate the importance of the credibility of information and the perceived privacy risk in social networks to consumption by their users. Therefore, since users culturally differ from each other, Posey et al. (2010) identify the extreme importance of approaching online communities from transcultural perspectives. The authors apply three theories in this approach: ideas of social exchange (individuals get involved in relationships when the perceived costs associated with the relationships fall below the expected benefits) and penetration theory (individuals participate out of self-revelation to foster relationships) as well as transcultural theory related with individualism and collectivism.
After researching the factors that shape the aggressive intentions among users of online communities, Xu et al. (2016) conclude that online aggression may be inhibited by moral beliefs and susceptible to strengthening through means of implementing consequences through effective community policies and mutual pressures applied by community members.
4.6 Cluster 4 (n = 11): Content of online communities
The growing dependence of society on information technologies comes coupled with a hike in the number of increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks committed by criminals operating on the Darknet (Gatzweiler et al. 2017). Gatzweiler et al. (2017) put forward the Darknet Identification, Collection, Evaluation, with Ethics (DICE-E) tool to enable researchers to study processes ongoing on the Darknet.
In keeping with the constant growth in social network popularity, a new ethical debate emerges on marketing and digital technology (Vanacker and Heider 2012; Barrett et al. 2016; Kaylor 2019; Liao et al. 2020a; 2020b). Despite the ever-more intensive utilisation of online communities, consumers hold more significant concerns over the credibility of the information provided. Various researchers have reported that the greater the quality of the information provided in online communities, the more influential these become in formulating opinions and shaping consumer decision-making (Barrett et al. 2016; Tsao and Mau 2019; Banerjee et al. 2021).
If opening up company decisions to the opinions of consumers returns positive effects, it also has limitations as companies end up ceding control over decisions to an unknown crowd (Hajli 2018), providing the scope for that termed deviant co-creation. Hajli (2018) identifies how deviant co-creation spans two types of content: (1) illegitimate content (including five themes: humour, provocation, uniqueness, and violation of technical and social norms) and (2) deviant content (generally confusing to its consumers and may trigger visible and malicious protests or result in exchanges and ridicule in the online community, exposing the individual to reputation risks).
The sharing of “fake news” or disinformation through online communities has risen drastically recently, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic (Benjamin et al. 2019; Stockinger 2015). Stockinger (2015) reports that in sharing news without verifying, the veracity depends on the psychological profile in which greater impulsiveness is associated with immediate sharing without any confirmation as to the source/accuracy of the contents (Fig. 5).
5 Research agenda
Regarding directions for future research, we provide recommendations for the field of ethics and the dark side of online community research. To this end, we position our proposals at the level of the specific subfields identified. These gaps are categorised and highlighted in Table 6.
5.1 Quality of information
There have been various research projects into the general ethics of online communities as well as how to carry out research in these communities (Flicker et al. 2004; Bowker and Tuffin 2004; Roberts 2015) and on the quality of the information collected (Wheeler 2017; Stvilia et al. 2019; Yeku 2020; Liu 2021).
Irrespective, the research on the Internet retains the need for retrospective studies of particular relevance in understanding how online communities form, develop and obtain success.
Other important questions for future research stem from the issues around the protections given to humans and the Internet bots participating in online communities. The protection of the identity and data of every type of individual is fundamental. Therefore, establishing limitations on obtaining data from studies of online communities amounts to a crucial ethical question. This also needs further studies regarding government institutions’ involvement in online communities, especially when seeking to involve citizens in this type of community.
Regarding the deployment of artificial intelligence in online communities, further studies require applying qualitative analytical approaches and mixed methodologies and demonstrating how, through their utilisation, we may study online communities while simultaneously protecting their users’ data.
5.2 Virtual identities
A highly diverse group of researchers has dedicated their attention towards the education and information held by users of online communities (Griffiths and Light 2008; Gummerus et al. 2017; Jones and Giles 2022). Furthermore, other academics have focused on the question of creating online identities and normalising anti-ethical behaviours in specific communities (Steinmetz 2012; Kafai et al. 2019; Burnett and Burnett 2019; Baeva et al. 2020).
Engaging in research that questions the suppositions, values and biases of this new wave of research bound up with Big Data is vital. It is equally important to research extremist groups’ recourse to online communities. The Internet provides a very relevant tool for these groups and the construction of (their) collective identity.
Virtual ethnography represents a methodology for consideration by future studies since it provides a powerful tool for understanding social communities and their subcultures. Researchers need to develop methods for appropriately examining these virtual interactions. Future research projects should also consider advancing mechanisms to educate users, in the best possible way, about the difficulties of determining right from wrong and how right and wrong may be seen concerning events in online communities. This is just as relevant for the owners/operators of these environments as the individuals who use them.
New studies should also verify the differences in the effectiveness of online communities across the ethical domains, especially as the ethical standards, ideologies and possession of consumer information define and shapes consumption patterns. There is also the requirement for research on which community interactions (behaviours that increase or decrease uncertainty) are the most beneficial to their members. Finally, evaluating the differences between members of different communities also accounts for an important target for future research projects.
5.3 Safety in online communities
Various researchers have dedicated their attention to studying safety in online communities (Hajli and Lin 2016), such as software piracy (Yu et al. 2015), commitment and organisational trust (Ouakouak and Ouedraogo 2019), the credibility of information (Tseng 2022), online aggression (Xu et al. 2016) and the relationship between cultural differences and the importance of safety in online communities (Posey et al. 2010).
Future research needs to make more detailed studies of the safety information prevailing in online communities and the cultural differences among community users. Future research should also look at the level of diversity in online communities and how the perceptions of which organisational characteristics enable a greater sharing of information in safety and can generate positive results for this organisation. In addition, community policies may or may not directly influence their users. Thus, it is important to verify which mechanisms make the ethical guidelines of online communities more efficient and thereby reduce the incidence of aggressive activities and behaviours, especially among younger users. There is also a great need for transcultural studies to ascertain the impact of culture on the context of online aggression.
5.4 Content of online communities
Various researchers have concentrated their efforts on the contents of online communities, including Darknet (Gatzweiler et al. 2017), the ethics of marketing, and digital technology (Barrett et al. 2016; Kaylor 2019); the co-creation of value through analysis of the content of online communities (Barrett et al. 2016; Tsao and Mau 2019; Banerjee et al. 2021); unlawful content (Hajli 2018) and fake news (Benjamin et al. 2019; Stockinger 2015).
Future research lines need to verify online communities’ impact not only on already existing products or services but also on the level of products still under development. Hence, this may produce a support basis enabling future innovations and improving existing products and those still for launching, providing a departure point for open innovation. Future research also has to approach the level of deviant content by varied values, norms and behaviours. There is also importance in studying the normative perceptions of online community users. Evaluating this deviant content’s impact on organisations’ innovation processes represents another area for the literature to deepen.
6 Final considerations
In recent years, research into the ethics and the dark side of online communities has gained significant attention. However, overall, only a few studies are dedicated to this field. Thus, there remains the need to understand these phenomena across their entire extent and range to ensure that when online communities construct ethical policies, they incorporate the variables necessary to deal with the ethics and the dark side of online communities.
In this study, we applied bibliographic coupling analysis of documents to map the research on ethics and the dark side of online communities to grasp its origins and trends and, correspondingly, set out opportunities for future studies. Our research has important implications for this field of knowledge (theory and practice). First, at the methodological level, our bibliometric approach enabled us to understand better the relationships ongoing among the ideas, authors and research trends as well as the structure of this research field, of particular use due to the multidisciplinary and heterogeneous nature of the field of ethics and the dark side of online communities, spanning various of the natural and social sciences.
Second, the applications of bibliometric techniques returned knowledge on the subfields within the literature on the ethics and the dark side of online communities and characterises them based on their constituent articles. Identifying the trends, patterns and trajectories in this field and its subfields enables us to set out a future research agenda for the field of ethics and the dark side of online communities. The techniques we apply enable us to learn the general directions in which the core research on ethics and the dark side of online communities are heading. Hence, we provide powerful tools for characterising this field of study, understanding the internal structure and highlighting the blind spots still existing in the research agenda on the ethics and the dark side of online communities and opening up promising paths for future research projects.
And finally, through our research, we believe that the various agents who intervene in online communities and are concerned with their ethical and moral issues can better understand these communities’ characteristics and dark sides. In this way, they will be able to take the measures they deem necessary for their protection and the least possible inviolability.
We also recognise certain limitations about the methodological criteria chosen for the research, especially the option to collect articles from only one database (WoS). Furthermore, the bibliometric technique applied needs to consider the impact achieved by the articles, especially regarding the number of citations each article receives. Future research may combine automated techniques for text mining and the analysis of co-citations and extend the research to other databases, for example, Scopus®.
References
AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2012) Ethical decision making and internet research—Version 2.0. Retrieved from Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
Arfini S, Bertolotti T, Magnani L (2019) Online communities as virtual cognitive niches. Synthese 196(1):377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1482-0
Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Inform 11(4):959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Baeva LV (2020) Social and existential threats to personal security in virtual communities: groups of death and Columbine communities. Int J Technoethics 11(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.2020010101
Banerjee S, Singh JP, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP (2021) Social media analytics for end-users’ expectation management in information systems development projects. Inform Technol People 34(6):1600–1614. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2020-0706
Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski W (2016) Creating value in online communities: the sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement. Inform Syst Res 27(4):704–723. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0648
Baym N, Boyd D (2012) Socially mediated publicness: an introduction. J Broadcast Electron Media 56:320–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705200
Benjamin V, Valacich J, Chen H (2019) DICE-E: a framework for conducting darknet identification, collection, evaluation with ethics. MIS Q 43(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2019/13808
Blum-Ross A, Livingstone S (2017) Sharenting, parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Pop Commun 15(2):110–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
Bowker N, Tuffin K (2004) Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social Sci Comput Rev 22(2):228–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262561
Boyack KW, Klavans R (2010) Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn 61(12):2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
Boyd D, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inform Commun Soc 15(5):662–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Brady E, Segar J, Sanders C (2016) I always vet things: navigating privacy and the presentation of self on Health discussion boards among individuals with long-term conditions. J Med Internet Res 18(10):e274. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6019
Breitsohl J, Jimenez N, Roschk H (2022) Investigating consumers’ motives for consumer brand-cyberbullying on social media. Inform Soc 38(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1981507
Brownlow C, O’Dell L (2002) Ethical issues for qualitative research in on-line communities. Disabil Soc 17(6):685–694
Burnett K, Burnett G (2019) Information domains, information ethics. Inform Res Int Electron J 24(4). http://InformationR.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1942.html
Caiani M, Parenti L (2009) The dark side of the web: italian right-wing extremist groups and the internet. South Eur Soc Politics 14(3):273–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740903342491
Cheng G, Yu W (2021) Brand attachment and oppositional loyalty: the moderating role of moral identity. Soc Behav Personal. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10804
Cheng G, Yu W (2022) Positive and negative behaviors of oppositional loyalty in Online Communities. IEEE Access 10:20948–20963. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3113578
De Hertogh LB (2018) Feminist digital research methodology for rhetoricians of health and medicine. J Bus Tech Commun 32(4):480–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918780188
Elgesem D (2002) What is special about ethical issues in online research? Ethics Inf Technol 4(2002):195–203
Ferreira JJ, Fernandes CI, Veiga PM, Hughes M (2021) Prevailing theoretical approaches predicting sustainable business models: a systematic review. Int J Product Perform Manag.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0653
Flicker S, Haans D, Skinner H (2004) Ethical dilemmas in research on internet communities. Qual Health Res 14(1):124–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303259842
Frost JH, Massagli MP (2008) Social uses of personal health information within PatientsLikeMe, an online patient community: what can happen when patients have access to one another’s data. J Med Internet Res 10(3):e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1053
Gatzweiler A, Blazevic V, Piller FT (2017) Dark side or bright light: destructive and constructive deviant content in consumer ideation contests. J Prod Innov Manag 34(6):772–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12369
Germain J, Harris J, Mackay S, Maxwell C (2018) Why should we use online research methods? Four Doctoral health student perspectives. Qual Health Res 28(10):1650–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317721698
Graham T (2012) Beyond political communicative spaces: talking politics on the wife swap discussion forum. J Inf Technol Politics 9:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.635961
Griffiths M, Light B (2008) Social networking and digital gaming media convergence: classification and its consequences for appropriation. Inform Syst Front 10(4):447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9105-4
Gummerus J, Liljander V, Sihlman R (2017) Do ethical social media communities pay off? An exploratory study of the ability of Facebook ethical communities to strengthen consumers’ ethical consumption behavior. J Bus Ethics 144(3):449–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2830-y
Gupta S, Kar AK, Baabdullah A, Al-Khowaiter WAA (2018) Big data with cognitive computing: a review for the future. Int J Inf Manag 42:78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.005
Gustafson DL, Woodworth CF (2014) Methodological and ethical issues in research using social media: a metamethod of human papillomavirus vaccine studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-127
Hair N, Clark M (2007) The ethical dilemmas and challenges of ethnographic research in electronic communities. Int J Market Res 49(6):781–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530704900609
Hajli N (2018) Ethical environment in the online communities by information credibility: a social media perspective. J Bus Ethics 149(4):799–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3036-7
Hajli N, Lin X (2016) Exploring the security of information sharing on social networking sites: the role of perceived control of information. J Bus Ethics 133(1):111–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2346-x
Hawkins DT (1977) Unconventional uses of on-line information retrieval systems: on-line bibliometric studies. J Am Soc Inf Sci 28(1):13–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630280103
Johnston AC, Worrell JL, Di Gangi PM, Wasko M (2013) Online health communities. Inf Technol People 26(2):213–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2013-0040
Jones E, Giles DC (2022) Women who remain in relationships with registered sexual offenders: analysis of forum discussion. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 32(1):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2558
Kafai YB, Fields DA, Ellis E (2019) The ethics of play and participation in a tween virtual world: continuity and change in cheating practices and perspectives in the Whyville community. Cogn Dev 49:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.11.004
Kantanen H, Manninen J (2016) Hazy boundaries: virtual communities and research ethics. Media Commun 4(4):86–96. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.576
Kaylor B (2019) Likes, retweets, and polarization. Rev Expo 116(2):183–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034637319851508
Kraus S, Durst S, Ferreira JJ, Veiga P, Kailer N, Weinmann A (2022) Digital transformation in business and management research: an overview of the current status quo. Int J Inf Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466
Leydesdorff L, Vaughan L (2006) Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: extending ACA to the web environment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Techonol 57(12):1616–1628. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
Liao J, Wang D (2020) When does an online brand community backfire? An empirical study. J Res Interact Mark 14(4):413–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-07-2019-0115
Liao J, Yang D, Wei H, Guo Y (2020) The bright side and dark side of group heterogeneity within online brand community. J Prod Brand Manag 29(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-1972
Lin C-F (2008) The cyber-aspects of virtual communities: free downloader ethics, cognition, and perceived service quality. Cyberpsychol Behav 11(1):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9932
Liu Y (2021) Culture reproduction or value conflict? The morally fraught experience of chinese Christians in virtual communities. Int J Sino-Western Stud 20:43–60. https://doi.org/10.37819/ijsws.20.108
Mann C, Stewart F (2000) Internet communication and qualitative research: a handbook for researching online. SAGE, London
Marwick AE (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc 13:114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Mason RO (1986) Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Q 10(1):5–12
Mutschke P, Mayr P, Schaer P, Sure Y (2011) Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems. Scientometrics 89(1):349–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0430-x
O’Neil M (2015) Labour out of control: the Political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organ Stud 36(12):1627–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615585339
Osareh F (1996) Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature I. Libri 46(3):149–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1996.46.4.217
Ouakouak ML, Ouedraogo N (2019) Fostering knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization the impact of organizational commitment and trust. Bus Process Manag J 25(4):757–779. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2017-0107
Paechter C (2013) Researching sensitive issues online: implications of a hybrid insider/outsider position in a retrospective ethnographic study. Qual Res 13(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446107
Pande S (2017) Ethics in citizen journalism: incident of teenage girl molestation in India. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 15(1):2–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-05-2016-0017
Paris C, Colineau N, Nepal S, Bista SK, Beschorner G (2013) Ethical considerations in an online community: the balancing act. Ethics Inf Technol 15(4):301–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9315-4
Posey C, Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Ellis TS (2010) Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. Eur J Inform Syst 19(2):181–195. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.15
Rawassizadeh R (2012) Towards sharing life-log information with society. Behav Inform Technol 31(11):1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.510208
Ridderstrøm H (2003) Ethical challenges in research on youth’s personal home pages. In: Thorseth M (ed) Applied ethics in internet research. Norwegian University of Science and Technology Press, Trondheim, pp 155–170
Roberts LD (2015) Ethical issues in conducting qualitative research in online communities. Qual Res Psychol 12(3):314–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1008909
Schultze U, Mason RO (2012) Studying cyborgs: re-examining internet studies as human subjects research. J Inf Technol 27(4):301–312. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.30
Steinmetz KF (2012) Message received: virtual ethnography in online message boards. Int J Qual Methods 11(1):26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100103
Stockinger H (2015) Consumers’ perception of augmented reality as an emerging end user technology: social media monitoring applied. Kunstliche Intelligenz 29(4):419–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-015-0389-5
Stvilia B, Wu S, Lee DJ (2019) A framework for researcher participation in research information management systems. J Acad Librariansh 45(3):195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.014
Thomsom Reuters (2008) Using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data (Retrieved). http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/325133_thomson.pdf
Trevisan F, Reilly P (2014) Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: lessons from the study of british disability dissent networks. Inf Commun Soc 17(9):1131–1146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.889188
Tsao W-C, Mau T-C (2019) Ethics in social media marketing: how should sponsorship information be disclosed in online product reviews? ASLIB J Inf Manag 71(2):195–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2018-0080
Tseng H-T (2022) Shaping path of trust: the role of information credibility, social support, information sharing and perceived privacy risk in social commerce. Inf Technol People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2021-0564
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2017) Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111:1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
Vanacker B, Heider D (2012) Ethical harm in virtual communities. Converg Int J Res into New Media Technol 18(1):71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511419916
von Brocke J, Simons A, Riemer K, Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2015) Standing on the Shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709
Walsh I, Kalika M (2018) Network dynamics in the french-speaking and english-speaking IS research communities. Syst d’Inf Manag 23(4):67–145. https://doi.org/10.3917/sim.184.0067
Walsh I, Renaud A (2017) Reviewing the literature in the IS field: two bibliometric techniques to guide readings and help the interpretation of the literature. Syst d’Information and Manag 22(3):75–115. https://doi.org/10.3917/sim.173.0075
Waltman L, van Eck NJ, Noyons ECM (2010) A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J Inform 4(4):629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
Watanabe MM (2007) Conflict and intolerance in a web community: effects of a system integrating dialogues and monologues. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(3):1020–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00361.x
Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii
Weeden MR (2012) Ethics and on-line research methodology. J Soc Work Values Ethics 9(1):40–51
Wheeler KR (2017) The ethics of conducting virtual ethnography on visual platforms. Fieldwork Relig 12(2, SI):163–178. https://doi.org/10.1558/firn.35666
Xu B, Xu Z, Li D (2016) Internet aggression in online communities: a contemporary deterrence perspective. Inf Syst J 26(6):641–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12077
Yeku J (2020) Anti-Afropolitan ethics and the performative politics of online scambaiting. Soc Dyn J Afr Stud 46(2):240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2020.1813943
Yu C, Young M-L, Ju B-C (2015) Consumer software piracy in virtual communities an integrative model of heroism and social exchange. Internet Res 25(2):317–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2013-0187
Zupic I, Čater T (2014) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods 18(3):1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Acknowledgements
This work is financed by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I. P., under the project "UIDB/04630/2020.
Funding
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ferreira, J.J., Fernandes, C., Veiga, P.M. et al. Ethics and the dark side of online communities: mapping the field and a research agenda. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00653-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00653-z