The distinctive characteristics of online communities renders ethical issues in digital ethnography highly complex. Photo: TUCHONG

In the internet age, the high degree of invisibility in online environments creates a seemingly “undisturbed natural state,” making covert observation easier and giving rise to a large body of online lurking research. As a result, netnography research ethics have become an urgent topic of discussion. While existing international ethical codes and guidelines offer useful reference points, they are often insufficient for addressing the ethical dilemmas that arise in concrete research practice. This article examines the complexity underlying ethical issues in netnography and reflects on the limitations of normative ethics. On this basis, and guided by respect for the subjectivity of research participants and the principle of nonmaleficence, the article advocates for a situational and reflexive framework of ethics in practice as a supplement to normative ethics for addressing ethical dilemmas.

Ethical predicaments of netnography

In traditional field research, obtaining written consent through signed consent forms, or securing oral or tacit consent, is usually not difficult. In online qualitative research, however, non-physical presence and geographic dispersion complicate these procedures. Researchers may ask participants to download documents, sign them offline, and return them by fax or mail. Alternatively, they may rely on electronic signatures or obtain consent through audio or video recordings in any valid form. All such procedures, however, presuppose the ability to contact participants and inform them of the research. Because of the invisibility of cyberspace, notification becomes a necessary action; otherwise, participants may be entirely unaware of the researcher’s presence. In practice, this requirement is often difficult to meet. Online communities may range from dozens to hundreds—or even tens of thousands—of members, and some scholars argue that obtaining consent from so many participants is impracticable. Member mobility further compounds the difficulty of notification.

Perceptions of publicness constitute the most common reason researchers forego informed consent, yet the distinction between the “public” and the “private” is not always clear in conceptual, experiential, or empirical terms. To equate ease of access with publicness is an “ethically dangerous misunderstanding.” Even when a community is open to the public, participants may nonetheless regard ostensibly public environments as private spaces. It is therefore necessary to understand how participants themselves define public and private, a task that inevitably implicates their understandings of privacy. The challenge is that, in the internet age, privacy is not only personal and dynamic, but also situational and mediated. The distinction between public and private is thus not necessarily binary: Some spaces may fall “in between,” may be considered “semi-public,” or resist clear classification altogether.

In early internet research, some scholars treated online data as “public archives,” thereby obviating the need for informed consent. Others have argued that data collected through direct interaction with participants—such as email exchanges or online chats—should be regarded as human-subject data, whereas publicly accessible social network materials, user comments, and blogs can be treated as non-human textual materials. These divergent understandings of the status of online materials reveal how researchers’ assumptions themselves may become ethical traps.

The complexity of informed consent and related ethical issues in netnography stems from the distinctive characteristics of online communities and their constituent elements, as well as from the fact that this particular space both facilitates researchers’ access to specific populations and issues while enabling them to remain hidden or even assume disguised identities. This is not inherently indefensible, as many studies also proceed through open and transparent engagement with participants. For netnography, then, how should informed consent and related ethical issues be handled? It may be difficult to offer a single, absolute answer. Some cases suggest that obtaining informed consent can, at times, cause harm, and that anonymity does not always align with participants’ own preferences.

Supplementing normative ethics with ethics in practice

The ethical risks outlined above are not fully addressed by normative ethics. This implies that rigid adherence to fixed ethical rules may be unworkable, yet abandoning ethical guidance altogether is equally untenable. Ethical decision-making hinges, first, on how researchers perceive and engage with the online communities and materials they study—such as degrees of publicness and the status of data—and, second, on how they understand and treat their research topics and participants, including the influence of prior values, assumptions, and even biases. Ultimately, researchers must return to specific times and places to understand and empathize with participants’ situations and states of mind in order to make fair and ethically sound choices.

For this reason, it is crucial to adopt the principle of “method first, ethics following,” recognizing that method and ethics mutually shape one another. The ethics of netnographic research must account for the differences between this method and traditional ethnography, as well as its distinctions from media research approaches such as content analysis. Only on this basis can we meaningfully examine how ethics are embedded in the complex structures formed through the interweaving of media technologies, sociopolitical contexts, and individual cognition.

Accordingly, this article proposes an “ethics in practice” framework as a supplement to normative ethics to help alleviate the ethical predicaments of netnography. Ethics in practice refers to the ways in which people make moral decisions and act in concrete situations, focusing on the process of applying ethical principles and values in everyday life. Applied to research ethics, it centers on the routine decisions made at unpredictable moments throughout the research process. In the context of internet research ethics, prior discussions of ethics in practice emphasize the situational nature of ethical decision-making, foreground researchers’ agency, and require heightened sensitivity to online environments. This also implies that, in adapting to specific contexts, researchers may not be able to fully comply with established ethical norms and procedures, but may instead need to adjust or revise them.

Grounded in the methodological characteristics of netnography, the ethics in practice advanced here emphasizes the internal and external factors that must be weighed during ethical decision-making in research, integrating both situationality and reflexivity. In terms of situationality, researchers should direct their attention outward—both physically and mentally—to apprehend the political, social, and cultural contexts of their research, examine the conditions of online media and spaces, and situate research ethics within the research process as a whole, taking into account factors such as degrees of immersion and duration. In terms of reflexivity, researchers should turn inward, maintaining introspection and awareness, confronting ethical tensions and challenges, and making appropriate adjustments.

Theoretical implications, adaptability of ethics in practice

Anchored in methodological characteristics and research practices, ethics in practice aims to guide researchers to critically reflect on normative ethics and to make contextually appropriate and ethically sound choices.

First, situationality entails rejecting one-size-fits-all or universally applicable solutions in favor of careful attention to specific environments, scenes, and contexts. Researchers must recognize the plurality of cultural forms and remain sensitive to differing social, political, and cultural conditions.

Second, ethical decision-making in netnography must incorporate considerations of mediation. Netnography takes virtual environments as its primary research setting, relies on online platforms for expression and interaction, and typically engages with individuals and groups not physically co-present through mediated communication. Ethically, this has two implications: Interactions between researchers and participants via different media can shape or constrain ethical conduct; and different community environments generate distinct ethical expectations that make it necessary to examine the backgrounds and norms of specific virtual communities. Where informed consent is to be sought, researchers should invest time in familiarizing themselves with a community’s culture.

Third, researchers should not treat participants as “guinea pigs.” Instead, research should be grounded in participants’ feelings and experiences rather than in researchers’ own assumptions, foreground participants’ voices, and examine how participants construct meaning themselves. Given netnography’s emphasis on immersion and the possibility of deep participation, there is no justification for disregarding the subjectivity of participants or content contributors. Even when texts are public and easily accessible, their authors must still be considered, as these materials were not originally produced for research purposes. This consideration is especially important in communities characterized by dense interaction, where texts and images are created by thinking, feeling individuals.

Fourth, netnographic fieldwork often extends over six months to a year or longer. In light of the difficulties discussed above, lurking may be treated as an important preliminary step prior to obtaining informed consent, enabling researchers to grasp communication themes, atmospheres, and norms within online communities and to assess the likelihood of being accepted by members.

Fifth, self-reflexivity serves as a remedy for epistemological anxiety and ethical dilemmas. Reflexive practice aids in understanding both the phenomenon under study and the research process itself, helping researchers move beyond epistemological impasses. Reflexivity is also a core professional quality. Ethical reflexivity encompasses three dimensions. The first is self-reflexivity: acknowledging that researchers’ knowledge and social positions shape research claims, interactions with participants, and even potential biases. This awareness can help prevent inadvertent condescension—particularly when working with marginalized groups—and avoid the imposition of stigmatizing labels that lead to ethical tensions. The second is action reflexivity: engaging in ongoing critical reflection on one’s everyday activities and research practices throughout the study. Living with the discomfort of reflexivity is methodologically normal in participatory qualitative research. The third is technological reflexivity: incorporating internet technologies into the scope and process of reflection, interrogating the functions of technological objects, and recognizing that the “I” is entangled with multiple technological components—becoming a reflexive “we,” an assemblage of human and non-human elements surrounding the phenomenon under study.

Faced with a relatively novel method with limited precedents and various psychological and embodied pressures, netnographers may experience uncertainty, self-doubt, or anxiety. When ethical uncertainties loom large, maintaining field notes or reflexive journals can help document and reflect on these concerns, sustain presence and awareness, and continuously evaluate and revisit both the research process and its ethical dimensions.

Bu Yumei is an associate professor from the School of Sociology and Anthropology at Xiamen University. This article has been edited and excerpted from Journalism & Communication, Issue 7, 2025.