=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3232/paper16
|storemode=property
|title=Protecting the Researcher in Digital Contexts
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3232/paper16.pdf
|volume=Vol-3232
|authors=Coppélie Cocq,Evelina Liliequist,Lacey Okonski
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dhn/CocqLO22
}}
==Protecting the Researcher in Digital Contexts==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3232/paper16.pdf
Protecting the Researcher in Digital Contexts
Coppélie Cocq1, Evelina Liliequist1 and Lacey Okonski1
1
Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden
Abstract
In recent years, a growing need for protecting researchers has become necessary as online risks
such as death threats and “doxing” are more frequent risks in relation to an increased digital
landscape of anti-gender, far right extremists, and anti-science movements. This paper suggests
resources and strategies for preventing threats and protecting researchers. By improving safety
and support, entities such as universities, departments, and research groups can avoid the
negative impact of online harassment on researchers’ reputation and health, on academic
research and for democracy.
Keywords 1
risky research; online abuse; research ethics
1. Introduction
In recent years, a growing need for protecting researchers has become necessary as greater levels of
risk are posed to academics through online settings. In relation to an increased digital landscape of anti-
gender, far right extremists, and anti-science movements, risks such as death threats and “doxing”, or
sharing information publicly for the purposes of harassment and intimidation, have become more
frequent. Especially targeted are researchers whose work, and/or whose public identity is norm breaking
- e.g., ethnicity, minority identity, sexual identity, political activism, etc. [1, 2, 3, 4] or challenges white
male supremacy, colonialism, heteronormativity, and/or in other ways critically studies power
structures. Furthermore, Massanari (2018) observes how “[i]ndividuals working within the humanities
and social sciences are particularly at risk, given the ontological and epistemological rationales for their
research” [5, p. 2].
The growing need for developing resources to protect researchers has been emphasized by e.g. the
Association of Internet Researchers, stating for instance that an “essential measure is that institutions
develop policy detailing support procedures for researchers experiencing online threats or harassment
related to their work” [6, p. 11]. Other texts and statements published by scientific societies encourage
universities to develop policies and strategies for protecting researchers conducting risky research [see
for instance 7].
In our research, we are taking a first step toward identifying and understanding unsafe research
situations primarily in a Swedish context. This paper suggests resources and strategies for preventing
threats and protecting researchers in the Humanities. By improving safety and support, entities such as
universities, departments, and research groups can avoid the negative impact of online harassment on
researchers’ reputation and health, and ensure that researchers do not drop funded lines of research for
safety reasons.
1
The 6th Digital Humanities in the Nordic and Baltic Countries Conference (DHNB 2022), March 15–18, 2022, Uppsala, Sweden
EMAIL: coppelie.cocq@umu.se (A. 1); evelina.liliequist@umu.se (A. 2); lacey.okonski@gmail.com (A. 3)
ORCID: 0000-0001-7058-9955], (A. 1); 0000-0002-9214-0099 (A. 2); 0000-0003-4833-7270 (A. 3)
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
195
2. Understanding researchers at risk
Today, individuals and groups face increased visibility on social media. As new tools for seeing and
being seen have been introduced in the era of social media the act of sharing has become a central, and
often socially expected, aspect of participation in online communities [cf. 8, p. 1052]. For researchers
in particular, visibility is often constructed as something positive to strive for: we are encouraged (and
to some extent expected) by our employers and funding institutions to inform others about our research
by having an online presence. Visibility is also necessary as a means for networking and for societal
impact – we want people to read our publications, to know about our results, and to extend our findings
beyond the ivory tower.
However, visibility and online presence have a dark side. In the context of online academic
communication, researchers face the risk of becoming products, where focus is not only on what they
do and on their findings, but also on who they are, something that McMillan Cottom (2015) describes
as the construction of “microcelebrity''. This contributes to the development of a form of academic
capitalism, i.e. “the ways in which knowledge production increasingly embeds universities in the new
economy” [1, see also 9]. Moreover, one problematic aspect is the fact that researchers as professionals
are expected to share information that sometimes touches upon their lives as private persons, in contexts
where they do not have much control. The internet can function as a mechanism of harassment that
shields harassers under “free speech” while offering limited protection to those exposed to risks and
targeted. Social media sites function through a logic that encourages amplification of messages that can
cause harmful content [e.g. 5].
In interdisciplinary contexts such as gender, minority, and environmental research, for instance, the
exposure of researchers is an issue that has been addressed more recently in international research [10,
3]. The conducted studies indicate that safety considerations can restrict research and lead to termination
of funded high-quality research in progress. Previous research [2, 3, 5] has also shown that being part
of a marginalised group (e.g. female, Indigenous, black, lgbtq) may increase the level/risk exposure.
Also, the implications of risk and the level of harm is often bigger in these groups than if you are part
of a privileged community (e.g white, cisgender, heterosexual, male). For example, Yelin & Clancy
(2021) argue that threats and abusive comments are often gendered and that derogatory gender-based
terms are used with the purpose of making women feel uncomfortable speaking out [3,11]. Vera-Gray
(2017) also points out the added labour of ‘safety work’ as a problematic aspect as it “forms an invisible
backdrop to the methodological decisions of many feminist researchers” [12, p. 62]. Implications of
risks may also manifest as self-censorship as limiting oneself can be a strategy to avoid being put at
risk.
Research about risky research in Swedish academic contexts is scarce, and addressed mostly in “grey
literature” (reports, etc.). Surveys indicate that about 50% of respondents have experienced hate speech
and/or toxic speech online [13, 14]. The Swedish Defence Research Agency recently published two
brief reports addressing the issue of toxic language online. The first report [15] investigates toxic speech
(hate speech and dangerous speech) in Swedish online forums and platforms, where "societal
institutions'' (a category that would include researchers) is mentioned as one category that receives these
types of comments. The second report [16] observes that forms of derogatory comments vary between
men and women. While men are exposed to devaluing comments about lack of competence or
performance in their profession or in general, women are to a greater extent exposed to derogatory
comments about appearance including allegations that a person is ugly or unattractive [3]. These reports
underscore the scope of the problem of toxic language use in Swedish online contexts. Studies have
focused on specific professional groups, i.e. journalists, politicians, influencers, comedians and artists
[14; 17]. Exposure in academic contexts and towards researchers is less researched.
Another survey in a Swedish context found that people involved in societal issues are particularly
exposed to threats and hatred [13]. This applies, for example, to elected representatives, journalists,
artists, opinion leaders, researchers, and representatives of civil society. Academics and journalists who
write about feminism and anti-racism often suffer from online hate in an organized form, something
described in the report as "continuously opposed by more or less organized hatred"[13, p. 24]. These
findings indicate that the democratic conversation is limited and important voices risk being silenced.
196
3. Risky research and its implications
While surveillance from the alt-right can intimidate researchers [5], giving researchers the resources
they need to safely conduct research on topics such as gender, race, climate, and politics has far reaching
implications for societal and political spheres and for research ethics and methodologies more generally.
For example, if researchers do not have proper protections in place and avoid researching topics that
put them at risk they may miss opportunities to conduct work that informs public debate and challenges
harmful narratives/paradigms [3]. Alternatively, if researchers are enabled to publish risky projects
within a research collective and with the institutional support of the university they may be able to
spend more time contributing to research and less time mitigating risk factors.
Potentially, any researcher can be exposed, but recent examples in a Swedish context might help us
to grasp the scope of the issue and, in relation to other international studies, discern some patterns.
In 2018, an employee at the Swedish National Secretariat for Gender Research found a suspicious
object in a bag by the entrance. It later was found to be a dummy device that resembled a dangerous
object, nonetheless we have good reasons to assume that fear and harm was inflicted, both emotionally
and psychologically, to the staff, as well as having implications for gender scholars in general. This
should not be regarded as an isolated event. Gender scholars in Swedish contexts report recurrent
threats, often in conjunction with being published, as being part of everyday life for gender researchers
[18]. This can also be understood as part of the increased threats towards gender research(ers)
worldwide [3]. Other highly politicised fields and areas of research where dangerous or hate speech
occur include minority studies and research concerned with marginalised groups. In the case of
Indigenous and Sámi research, for instance, the existence of such fields of research in themselves is
questioned, the identity, colonial heritage etc of these groups are questioned [19, 20, 21], and
researchers are in the front line. These examples highlight the increased risk for threats towards certain
groups in relation to gender and race.
Gendered and racial violence can also be noted in relation to the phenomena Zoombombing – a
practice of crashing Zoom meetings and posting distressing and/or abusive comments, pictures or
videos during the meeting. This is an increasing problem noted especially during the Covid-19
pandemic when meetings, lectures and seminars were transferred to exclusively online events [22]. As
stated by Ling et al. 2021 “Online meeting tools like Zoom and Google Meet have become central to
our professional, educational, and personal lives. This has opened up new opportunities for large scale
harassment”. In Racist Zoombombing [22], the phenomenon is examined and explained as a form of
racial violence in forms of racist harassment and hate speech. This malicious practice risks disturbing
important academic work and events and, as Nakumara et al. (2021) show, racial abuse during zoom
meetings can cause lasting trauma, anxiety, and anger [23].
Recently, scholars engaged in research related to the Covid-19 pandemics have also witnessed how
they have been the target of massive threats and harassment [24]. Concerns have been raised by
employers and scientific boards about the implications of such threats. Such a situation not only has
consequences on the researchers’ work environment, but also severe implications for the willingness of
researchers to engage in research of crucial importance for our societies. One example experienced by
colleagues at another department at Umeå University (Sweden) occurred when students were
conducting an online study about perceptions of climate change which revealed their email within the
consent form as a part of standard practice in online research. They subsequently suffered email
harassment from anti-climate activists causing the department to be hesitant to tackle such topics and
nervous about protocols for conducting research which is extremely important to understanding
attitudes towards climate and mitigation strategies. If these experiences continue, issues such as Covid-
19 and climate would be less likely to be addressed in the social sciences and humanities literature and
more vulnerable to disinformation from malicious actors.
Online harassment can take multiple forms. The threat is not always explicit and a researcher might
experience a feeling of discomfort that may already have an impact on their well-being. For instance,
Massanari (2018) brings attention to the phenomena of sea lioning, a type of trolling or harassment that
consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while
197
maintaining a pretence of civility and sincerity [5]. Doxing – sharing information publicly for the
purposes of harassment and intimidation - is a more explicit form of threat that has been emphasised
and addressed as an increasing problem, for instance, by the Association of Internet Researchers [6].
AoIR also points out potential risk for threats and retaliation should researchers’ identities become
known, in relation to field work, e.g. in research that investigates discussions or phenomena in toxic
environments, for instance 8chan and to some extent Flashback, and/or in studies on anti-gender and
ALT-right groups or other violent online and offline political extremists on social media. Related risks
worth mentioning, which are also highlighted by AoIR [6], are the risks for psychological consequences
involved with research that addresses directly sensitive topics - such as violence, pornography, religious
fanaticism, etc. Although this constitutes another form of risk than the one illustrated above, it is
important to consider what support researchers might need while doing fieldwork in potentially toxic
environments and/or researching potentially heavy and heartbreaking subjects, and also afterwards
while handling such data.
Online threat, harassment, hate, and dangerous speech can obviously have serious implications for
individuals in terms of well-being and work environment. In addition, there are implications for the
employer as well. A university may not be doxed but they may risk losing important research grants,
having bad PR, or a decline in public support (with the rise of anti-intellectual sentiments). They risk
not reaching their potential in research excellence if their employees are being harassed and face this
additional emotional labour, intellectual labour and sometimes even legal battles. Highlighting the
financial and PR risks the university could suffer may be key to get support at the university level.
4. Strategies
Based on literature and discussions with peers in international academic contexts, we have identified,
and suggest below, a set of strategies for proactively and actively supporting and protecting scholars
doing risky research, or being exposed for other reasons. This list of suggestions is far from being
exhaustive, but can hopefully spark inspiration and discussion within research environments in need of
addressing issues similar to those addressed in this paper. We also think and hope that these suggestions
can be helpful for supervisors of students at different levels, as exposure and risky research can also be
of immediate interest for students writing essays and theses on sensitive topics and/or doing fieldwork
in toxic environments.
In all of these suggested strategies, we start from the idea of solidarity, with inspiration from ethics
of care, which starts with “the real experience of being embedded in relationships with uneven power
relations” [25, p. 67; see also 26].
4.1 Need for intersectional awareness
We see intersectionality as key for understanding how aspects of a person’s identities combined create
different modes of discrimination and privilege in relation to interlocking systems of power [27].
Intersectional perspectives highlight the complexity of the issue of researchers being increasingly at
risk. It is an approach for understanding who, in what ways, and to what extent researchers, in relation
to gender and gender identity, race, age, functionality, sexuality and so on, can be at risk in digital
contexts with different implications.
We also want to highlight the potential different implications of risk in relation to employment status
and academic career level, as junior, non-permanent, or not yet tenured scholars may have more to lose
if their work is put under intense scrutiny in public forums or if they drop an important line of research.
As stated by Massanari (2018) visibility can be profoundly damaging for researchers in precarious
professional situations (eg adjuncts, graduate students, or job applicants) [5].
Intersectional awareness can help to be proactive. Also, an intersectional awareness helps to address
the problem in a context-based way, rather than a one solution-fits all approach which may be excluding
and/or fail to grasp the whole problem and potential long term implications, especially on an individual
level.
198
4.2 Managing Visibility
While visibility is often central in our academic work, visibility can also be problematic, as we have
stated in this paper. In this section, we will highlight some examples of situations where protecting
one’s identity might be needed, and suggestions for possible strategies.
Researchers often need (and want) to be part of the digital context they study, which involves
immersion in the context: “social justice–oriented research on “alt-right” adjacent groups, such
entanglements are a form of risk—to students, researchers, their families, and their institutions” [10, p.
320]. Rambukkana (2019) suggests “engaging in covert invisible non-participatory observation” as a
precaution to avoid being put at risk [see also 28].
When conducting online fieldwork, using computational tools etc, a technology awareness is
necessary. VPN, ad blockers (against malicious code), and firewalls can offer some protection [29]. To
establish support and consultation from an IT security team that can recommend software and hardware
precautions is thus suggested for researchers and students prior to engaging with risky research and
risky fieldwork situations.
Talking in a collective voice can serve as a good strategy in order to avoid individual researchers to
stand on the front line, for instance when presenting sensitive results or in toxic contexts. A research
group, a lab, or a department can be the primary contact when presenting a study or sharing results, or
in publications. This can be especially useful for younger researchers. As senior researchers are more
likely to have better support networks among their peers, as well as experience, and a less vulnerable
employment situation, their engagement in communication of research as a collective voice is
important. Again, due to the increased intersectional risk factors of being targeted, marginalised
researchers can also benefit from being supported and/or represented through their peers. We suggest
research groups early in the research phase discuss potential risk and plan strategies for dealing with
potential unwanted attention.
Another strategy related to the collective voice is to publish anonymously or under a pseudonym
[10]. Publishing anonymously in academic research is not a common practice. Transparency,
responsibility, and accountability are core principles in research that stand in contradiction with
anonymity in publication. However, there have been cases when journals have allowed authors to
publish anonymously, for instance in the case of threat to personal safety [30]. Such a strategy needs to
be used only upon careful consideration, as responsibility in authorship should be prioritised as much
as possible. Also, there are implications for research impact when a scholar publishes anonymously or
under a pseudonym.
An awareness of potential risks for researchers is also important for personnel working with
communication in universities, at conferences and academic journals. News related to publications are
likely to be spread in external communication including social media to gain positive attention to a
department, journal, or author. Visibility can also become problematic. One way to avoid attracting
unwanted attention is to inform the author of the article beforehand and give them the choice to be
tagged or not, and on which social media platform. Tagging on social media is a great way to attract
attention but it can also attract unwanted attention.
4.3 Planning online events
During the Covid-19 pandemic, our research lab relocated all academic and public events online. In
this shift, we have experienced the balance and potential conflict between a need to promote events
while still ensuring the safety of our invited speakers. The issue of safety can be illustrated with this
(slightly edited) quote from one of our speakers in an email conversation about how and where to
market the event: “I have been doing public talks about LGBTQ+ issues for 20 years. It feels really
odd to be worried about visibility online, but this kind of security has been a major issue.” Having a
dialogue beforehand with the invited speaker made it possible for us to decide together on a marketing
plan that fit both parties' need for visibility, but in a manner that provided control and was based on
consent.
Another example of how to ensure security during our events – and more specifically for avoiding
the risk of “Zoombombing”- is to always require pre-sign up to events and not sharing the zoom link
until a day or two before the event. Although anyone can sign up, this is a strategy to make it harder
to get access to the meeting, as it requires more steps to the zoom-link [22]. This strategy increases
199
our control as event organisers. Further, Douglas suggests that “A general principle is that online
activities should be mediated by an IT Security team with appropriate special responsibility and
training” [29, p. 78]. For each of our events we have at least one technician present in the meeting,
ready to act, with attention to any unwanted behaviour in the audience. In events deemed risky, we set
up limits for how the audience can act during the meeting (e.g not turn on mics and cameras without
the hosts’ permission). Having established a strategy for how to plan, promote, and conduct our
events, we as organisers have better control and are better prepared. Hopefully seemingly small
actions provide improved security and protection for our invited speakers and participants.
4.4 The responsibility of institutions
While many universities have established policies to address and deal with explicit harassment,
threats, or violence, the vulnerability experienced by researchers in online environments is often
addressed to a lesser extent. Based on previous research, we argue that individual researchers should
not be left to fend for themselves, as work-related risks should be viewed as a work-related problem
and the responsibility must be placed on an institutional level. Thus, protocols and strategies for
ensuring the security and safety of all employees must be installed and continuously updated to
include strategies for handling online risks and dealing with potential harm and hatred posed in and
through digital contexts. As Yelin & Clancy (2021) state: “Universities have a duty of care to all
researchers, not just during the media work, but before and afterwards. It is important for universities
to take responsibility for the wellbeing of all researchers engaging in impact work which will benefit
the academy” [3]. While many universities in a Swedish context have established policies to address
and deal with explicit harassment, threats or violence, there is still a problematic absence of relevant
university policies at many universities as many of these protocols (if existing at all) fail to include
online risks and implications of such risks. They also fail to grasp the complex nature of how both
risks and its implications can differ (and thus may need different solutions) depending on who, what,
and where risks are posed. This is especially important in the case of researchers who are
disadvantageously affected by intersectional implications and converging risk factors. Finally, there is
a need for research to better understand where and why risks may arise, types of risk, and
implications. We strongly recommend research groups and research leaders develop policies and
preparedness for risky research. Resources listed in the next section can be a helpful start.
5. Resources
Already mentioned is the set of “Best practices for conducting risky research and protecting yourself
from online harassment” by Marwick et al (2016) published by Data & Society [7]. This resource
addresses primarily young researchers but is relevant for all academics. It also suggests a way to
approach university administrations and suggest modes of action for providing support to their
researchers. A list of additional valuable resources can also be found in this document.
Friedman et al. (2016) have developed resources “especially designed for women, people of color,
trans and genderqueer people, and everyone else whose existing oppressions are made worse by digital
violence”[31]. These are not specific for researchers, but include useful advice about security practices
for online behaviour, documentation of misconduct, and addressing emotional impacts of digital
violence. Other resources include websites specifically addressing online abuse, for instance Crash
Override, a crisis helpline, advocacy group and resource centre that offers helpful tools, educational
materials and DIY security guides [32]. The Swedish Crime Victim Authority provides information and
advice through their campaign “Do not fall silent” against online hatred, abuse and threats [33]. Among
other things, the website includes support and guidance on how to file a police rapport.
National, regional or local review boards are also resources toward which researchers can turn for
support when preparing a risky project. Employers’ policies and their security services often include
support in case of threats or violence. Even when those do not directly address the risks, threats, and/or
harassments that researchers meet in online environments, these structures provide a first contact when
in need of support or protection. Occupational health services might also provide support.
200
6. Conclusions
This paper aimed to provide an intersectional account of how researchers experience online risks,
the types of risks they face, who is typically targeted, and how this risk exposure can be a detriment to
research, to research institutions, and to the health of democracy. We argue that intersectional awareness
needs to be the starting point for developing protocols and strategies for avoiding and dealing with risk.
A second aim in this paper was to identify already available resources and strategies that
researchers and research groups can take to enable an increased intersectional awareness, manage
visibility, and better plan for secure online events to mitigate the costly demands placed on at-risk
researchers in online environments so that their resources can be better allocated to scholarly activities.
We conclude by arguing that institutions themselves should bear a greater responsibility to care for
researchers and take a more active approach in mitigating risk factors. Universities themselves stand to
lose well-funded and high-profile projects if they do not act. It is unknown how many projects to date
have been abandoned by researchers or have not been funded due to inadequate preparedness for online
research. Online methodologies and online risks are increasing at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile,
online environments are increasingly the context where societal issues and misinformation are
discussed, exacerbated, and propagated. Universities are not immune from these digital threats and, as
online risk increases, universities will need to keep up with technology and develop clear guidelines
and avenues of support to researchers. It is our most fervent hope that Swedish institutions develop
these protocols with an openly intersectional approach. In this era of fake news, tweetstorms, and tik
tok tidbits, democracy itself depends upon academic institutions protecting open dialogue in a
responsible way.
7. References
[1] McMillan Cottom, T. “‘Who Do You Think You Are?’: When Marginality Meets Academic
Microcelebrity”. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, No.7. (2015).
doi:10.7264/N3319T5T.
[2] Vera-Gray, F. “‘talk about a cunt with too much idle time’: trolling feminist research”. Feminist
review. 115(1): 61–78, (2017). doi: 10.1057/s41305-017-0038-y
[3] Yelin, H. & Clancy, L. “‘Doing impact work while female: Hate tweets, ‘hot potatoes’ and having
‘enough of experts’”, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 28(2): 175–193, (2021). doi:
10.1177/1350506820910194
[4] Engebretsen, E.L., Scientizing Gender? An Examination of Anti-Gender Campaigns on Social
Media, Norway, in: Eslen–Ziya, H., Giorgi, A. (eds) Populism and Science in Europe .Palgrave
Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2022).
[5] Massanari, A. L. “Rethinking Research Ethics, Power, and the Risk of Visibility in the Era of the
‘Alt-Right’ Gaze”. Social media + society. 4(2), (2018). doi: 10.1177/2056305118768302.
[6] franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C. & the Association of Internet Researchers.
Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0, (2020). URL: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
[7] Marwick, A., Blackwell, L., & Lo, K.. Best Practices for Conducting Risky Research and
Protecting Yourself from Online Harassment (Data & Society Guide). New York: Data & Society
Research Institute (2016). URL: https://datasociety.net/library/best-practices-for-conducting-
risky-research/.
[8] Marwick, A. E. & boyd, d. “Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media”,
New Media & Society, 16(7): 1051–1067 (2014, p. 1052). doi: 10.1177/1461444814543995.
[9] Berman, E. P. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine.
Princeton University Press, 2011.
[10] Rambukkana, N. “The Politics of Gray Data: Digital Methods, Intimate Proximity, and Research
Ethics for Work on the ‘Alt-Right’”. Qualitative inquiry. 25(3): 312–323 (2019).
doi:10.1177/1077800418806601.
201
[11] Sobieraj S. “Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: Patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics”.
Information, Communication and Society 21(11): 1700–1714 (2018). doi:
10.1080/1369118X.2017.1348535.
[12] Vera-Gray, F. “‘talk about a cunt with too much idle time’: trolling feminist research”. Feminist
review. 115(1): 61–78, (2017)
[13] Svensson, M., Björkenfeldt, O., Åström, F., & Dahlstrand, K. Näthat och demokratiskt deltagande
– en kunskapsöversikt. Brottsoffermyndigheten (2021).
[14] Fernquist, J., Kaati,L., Pelzer, B., Lindberg, S., Akrami, N., Cohen, K. & Pollack Sarnecki, H. Det
digitala hatets karaktär: En studie av hat mot kvinnor och män i utsatta yrkesgrupper. FOI Memo
7429, Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (FOI) (2020).
[15] Kaati, L., Pelzer, B., Asplund Cohen, K., Wallgren, D. Akrami, N & Yourstone J. Toxiskt språk i
svenska digitala miljöer. FOI Memo 7740, Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (FOI) (2021).
[16] Kaati, L., Asplund Cohen, K., Pelzer, B., Wallgren, D., Akrami, N. Yourstone, J. Könsskillnader
i utsatthet för toxiskt språk online. Memo 7741, Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (FOI) (2021).
[17] Ministry of Culture. “Till det fria ordets försvar – åtgärder mot utsatthet för hot och hat bland
journalister, förtroendevalda och konstnärer”. Regeringskansliet (2017).
[18] Lofrup, J. “Gender researcher: threats and hate are part of everyday life” (2019). URL:
https://www.staff.lu.se/article/gender-researcher-threats-and-hate-are-part-everyday-life.
[19] Carlson, B. & Fazer R. Indigenous Digital Life: The Practice and Politics of Being Indigenous on
Social Media. Springer International Publishing AG (2021).
[20] Katz, I., Keeley, M., Spears, B., Bates, S., Swirski, T., & Taddeo, C. Research on youth exposure
to, and management of, cyberbullying incidents in Australia: Synthesis Report, 2014. URL:
https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/publications/research-youth-exposure-and-
management-cyber-bullying-incidents-australia-synthesis-report-june-2014.
[21] Mobin, A., Feng, C. X., & Neudorf, C. “Cybervictimization among pre-adolescents in a
community-based sample in Canada: Prevalence and predictors”. Canadian Journal of Public
Health, 108(5–6): e475–e481 (2017). doi: 10.17269/cjph.108.5878
[22] Ling, C., Balci, U., Blackburn J. & Stringhini, G. A First Look at Zoombombing, 2021 IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2021, pp. 1452-1467), doi:
10.1109/SP40001.2021.00061.
[23] Nakamura, L., Stiverson, H., & Lindsey, K. Racist Zoombombing, 1st ed., New York: Routledge
(2021).
[24] Torkelsson, A-C. “Forskare vittnar om hot efter att ha pratat om covid-19 med media”.
Läkartidningen (2021).
[25] franzke, a. s. ”Feminist Research Ethics”, IRE 3.0 Companion 6.3, Association of Internet
Researchers (2020). URL: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
[26] Suomela, T., Chee, F., Berendt, B. & Rockwell, G. Applying an Ethics of Care to Internet
Research: Gamergate and Digital Humanities. Digital Studies/Le champ numérique, 9(1), 4. (2019,
p.2). https://www.digitalstudies.org/articles/10.16995/dscn.302/.
[27] Crenshaw, K. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against
Women of Color.” Stanford law review 43(6), (1991: 1241–1299).
[28] Pollock, E. “Researching white supremacists online: Methodological concerns of researching hate
online”. Internet Journal of Criminology, (2009).
[29] Douglas, K. “Operational Security: Central Considerations”, IRE 3.0 Appendices 7.1, Association
of Internet Researchers (2020). URL: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
[30] Council of Science Editors, Editorial Policy Committee, Authorship and Authorship
Responsibilities (2020). URL: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-
policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/
[31] Friedman, J., Sarkeesian, A., & Sherman, R. B. “Speak Up & Stay Safe(r): A Guide to Protecting
Yourself From Online Harassment” (2016). URL:
https://onlinesafety.feministfrequency.com/en/#about-us.
[32] http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/resources.html
[33] https://www.tystnainte.se/en/
202