Online Library

VOX-Pol Blog post.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

VOX-Pol Lecture Series, Spring 2023

Title: Emerging Methodologies Panel: Researching the Metaverse.

Chair: Dr Suraj Lakhani (University of Sussex)

Speaker 1: Dr Rachel Kowert

Outline: “The Metaverse” is a phrase that is used often despite the fact that there is no clear consensus on how to define this space. In this short talk, we will explore the various interpretations of the metaverse and put forward a new definition of “metaverse-like spaces” and explore how these environments are not something to expect in a dystopian future, but are present here and now. We will also discuss the challenges and practicalities facing researchers who wish to study these environments.

Speaker 2: Dr Elizabeth Pearson

Outline: Online extremism and terrorism research has been going on for at least two decades now: although there was some earlier coverage (Lowe 1985), the academic sub-field had its genesis in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Arquilla, Ronfeldt, and Zanini 1999; Conway 2002; Denning 1999). Despite this, understanding its impacts on the people who collect and analyse data on online extremism and terrorism, and who publish their findings, is a relatively new concern. Lizz Pearson discusses the new VOX-Pol report from the REASSURE project, exploring how researchers are harmed, how they prevent harm and what institutions are doing to help. Based on interviews with researchers, we look at how research in the metaverse might change these findings, and how institutions need to adapt to the ever-changing research environment to protect academics.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

Drawing from interviews with 39 online extremism and terrorism researchers, this article provides an empirical analysis of these researchers’ experiences with institutional ethics processes. Discussed are the harms that these researchers face in the course of their work, including trolling, doxing, and mental and emotional trauma arising from exposure to terrorist content, which highlight the need for an emphasis on researcher welfare. We find that researcher welfare is a neglected aspect of ethics review processes however, with most interviewees not required to gain ethics approval for their research resulting in very little attention to researcher welfare issues. Interviewees were frustrated with ethics processes, indicating that committees oftentimes lacked the requisite knowledge to make informed ethical decisions. Highlighted by interviewees too was a concern that greater emphasis on researcher welfare could result in blockages to their ‘risky’ research, creating a ‘Catch 22’: interviewees would like more emphasis on their (and colleagues’) welfare and provision of concomitant supports, but feel that increased oversight would make gaining ethics approval for their research more difficult, or even impossible. We offer suggestions for breaking the impasse, including more interactions between ethics committees and researchers; development of tailored guidelines; and more case studies reflecting on ethics processes.