What scholars and IRBs talk when they talk about the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research
通过访谈32位美国学者和机构审查委员会成员，揭示了在众包工作研究中应用贝尔蒙原则的两大困境：非人化与预期自主性的矛盾，以及金钱激励/声誉风险与传统研究收益/风险的冲突。
Abstract How scholars and IRBs perceive and apply the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research was an open and largely neglected question. As crowd work becomes increasingly popular for scholars to implement research and collect data, such negligence, signaling a lack of attention to the ethical issues in crowd work‐based research more broadly, seemed alarming. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 32 scholars and IRB directors/analysts in the United States to inquire into their perceptions and applications of the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research. We found two dilemmas in applying the Belmont principles in crowd work‐based research, namely the dilemma between the dehumanization and expected autonomy of crowd workers, and the dilemma between the monetary incentive/reputationall risks and the conventional notion of research benefits/risks. We also compared the scholars' and IRBs' ethical perspectives and proposed our research implications for future work.