Are We The Baddies? We May Get The Data We Deserve

02 December 2025, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.

Abstract

Much scholarship has debated the merits of samples from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and similar online marketplaces. Prior research has highlighted important, valid concerns about participant attention, ‘cheating’, fraudulent data, trolling and the use of VPNs which challenge the validity of work using these samples. However, while researchers must take these concerns seriously, we may be simply getting the data we deserve. In this paper, I argue that it is important for researchers to also focus on ourselves, and we should adopt more ethical practices that minimize data quality concerns, including signaling the value of the data to participants with adequate pay. Towards this end, I provide recommendations about how to address some ethical and practical implications of low compensation for participants.

Keywords

Crowdsourcing
experiments
MTurk
online research
survey research
research ethics

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.