ABSTRACT
This chapter illustrates how utilitarian approaches often harm the already most vulnerable, which indicates the superiority of clear rules like the ones endeavored by Internal Review Boards. It suggests that even personal imperatives can become detrimental when a strict set of rules fails in specific situations. If online texts are testimonies of human research subjects, researchers need IRB permissions with informed consent, and even pseudonyms should be redacted. In a field like fandom studies the sheer wealth of material, the speed and ephemerality of information and the seeming endless number of fannish online spaces alone mean that any research is limited by definition to what the author knows, has access to and, frankly, is interested in. Using personal narratives and experiences to argue theoretical points, it often acknowledges if not celebrates the fact that scientific objectivity can only ever be a falsehood, that any observation, description, and theory always carries the imprint of the researchers themselves.
