Fake news and Social Media

participation of Greek users, it was crucial to ensure both anonymity and
confidentiality. The users who were asked to participate in the survey were informed
that the questionnaires were anonymous. According to Collins (2010, p. 83), almost
all research guarantees the participants’ confidentiality: they are assured that
identifying information will not be made available to anyone who is not directly
involved in the research. Thus, the participants of this research were asked to provide
information only about their age and gender and fill in the rest of the questionnaire
without revealing their name or any other information about their identity. In this
way, the research guaranteed anonymity, in a sense that the participants remained
anonymous throughout the study, even to the researcher. However, an ethical issue
because of the use of Facebook as part of this study arose. In addition, there were
users who preferred to post public comments on the Facebook group Ellinika Hoaxes
informing other users that they had participated in the survey and shared their
experiences. Even though the users chose to reveal their participation in the study,
their anonymity within the survey was ensured, since information about their
answers were not revealed. 
Apart from anonymity and confidentiality, obtaining informed consent was also
considered as an option during the ethical decision-making process. According to
Buchanan and Hvizdak (2009), in-person participant enrollment in studies was also
considered includes a discussion and signing a consent form, while mailed or web-
based surveys imply consent or “passive” consent by virtue of participants
completing them. As they point out, participants should understand that they have the
right to participate without compromise and in addition, they should have the right to
not answer specific questions. However, as it was mentioned above, this study was
conducted with the use of the online platform Survey Monkey and the feature tools
which were employed for the questionnaire did not allow participants to skip
questions. In fact, participants were not allowed to move on to a subsequent question
without responding to the current question and they were not able to submit the
survey without responding to all questions. To deal with this ethical issue, a short
description about the online survey and what tools were offered to the participants
were shared within the Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group, to ensure that the users who
27

---

were going to participate in the survey would be informed about the survey’s
formality. 
In all forms of research, minimizing bias is important. Selection bias can be
problematic and can also compromise external validity in posted web-based surveys
(Eysenbach and Wyatt, 2002). In addition, according to Hammer (2017), researchers
should attempt to target diverse populations when it does not interfere with the
research purpose. However, as this study is focused on analyzing the members of the
Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group, specific limitations arose. For instance, it was not
feasible to target diverse populations since the population of this study is very
specific: the members of the Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group. It is worth mentioning
that the questionnaire provided to the participants, was constructed by the researcher,
and there were specific limitations for the users who participated in the study. These
limitations (for example the pre-set provided answers) might have influenced or
guide users' answers. To minimize the extent of bias the ‘other' option was added to
the questionnaire, to ensure that the participants will be provided with the option to
give their individual answers apart from those provided in the questionnaire.
Therefore, despite the fact that the questionnaire was constructed by the researcher
and one could say that the questions provided might mirror the researcher's bias, the
participants were allowed to express their own replies or better clarify their choices.
However, it is clear that the provided answers have constructed an already formed
framework for the participants of this study. This framework might have influence
their responses (or may not) and therefore it is crucial to also mention it as part of the
ethical consideration of this study. 
Apart from the above, it is worth mentioning the fact that the members of the
Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group do not represent the whole Greek users, and
therefore it would not be accurate to generalize the findings of this study. However,
based on the limitations of this study and the fact that this research has a specific
focus on the members of the Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group, specific decisions
during the design processes of this study were made. In fact, it would not be feasible
to study a broader target group, including members outside this specific group and
expand the findings of this study, since the aim of this research is first to come up
with conclusions about the way the members of the Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group
28

---

operates. Therefore, the findings of this study reflect only these specific group and
not all the Greek users. For practical reasons during this study the members of the
Ellinika Hoaxes Facebook group referred as “the Greek users”, but this does not
mean that the data presented above could be generalized and used to describe the
way the Greek users in general spot and curb fake news on social media.