Social and Digital Fieldwork

JGTSS welcomes research conducted in communities, organizations and digital environments when its collection and representation of evidence are ethically defensible. Fieldwork often involves relationships and risks that cannot be reduced to a consent checkbox. Authors should show how they considered their position, participants’ expectations and the consequences of making findings publicly available.

Access relationships and consent

A fieldwork account explains the setting, how access was obtained, who could participate and whether a gatekeeper influenced recruitment. Permission from a school, employer, platform administrator or community leader must not be described as the voluntary agreement of every person involved. Researchers consider whether dependence on the gatekeeper makes refusal difficult and provide an appropriate way to decline or withdraw where the design permits.

For observation, interviews, focus groups and participatory research, authors describe ethical review, consent or an approved alteration, and steps to protect people whose views may create risk. In some settings a signature may itself be unsafe; a justified oral or alternative consent procedure can be explained. The article states relevant limits of confidentiality, including the fact that researchers may not control what other focus-group participants later disclose.

Digital evidence and reidentification

A social-media account, publicly visible message or searchable quotation may reveal identity even after names are removed. Authors assess the sensitivity of the topic, users’ reasonable expectations, the platform context and risks to vulnerable or marginalized groups. They consider paraphrase, aggregation, masking of nonessential details or restricted access, while making clear when wording has been changed. Altering a quotation must not falsely represent what was said.

Automated collection requires disclosure of the access route, collection period, selection criteria and transformations. Researchers respect applicable access conditions and data rules; technical accessibility is not a general ethical exemption. Screenshots, usernames, geolocation and network connections are assessed together because combinations can enable reidentification. A public dataset should not expose information that the article properly withholds.

Representation and reproducible interpretation

Authors distinguish participants’ accounts from their own interpretation and avoid claiming that a small or purposive sample represents an entire population without justification. They describe translation, transcription, coding, reflexivity and checks appropriate to the method. Field assistants, interpreters and community contributors receive credit that reflects their work, with acknowledgement or authorship decided under Authorship and Contributorship rather than institutional rank.

Research involving sensitive regions or cross-border relationships assesses the consequences of publication for participants and collaborators. A data availability statement can describe controlled access, safe excerpts or methodological documentation when full transcripts cannot be shared. Editors may request a confidential verification route but should not require public exposure of identifiable field evidence.

If publication could cause a previously unrecognized serious harm, authors contact jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com promptly. The editor assesses the claim with appropriate expertise and considers a targeted correction or other minimum necessary action while preserving the scholarly record. A request to suppress criticism for reputational reasons is assessed separately from a substantiated participant-safety concern.

Last updated: 16 September 2026