Abstract:Purpose Academic scholars have leveraged crowd work platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk for human subjects research for almost two decades. However, few scholars have reflected or questioned this mode of academic research. This paper aims to examine three fundamental problems of crowd work and elaborates on their lasting effects on impacting the validity and quality of human subjects research on crowd work. Design/methodology/approach` A critical analysis is conducted on the characteristics of crowd work, and three fundamental problems of crowd work since its origin were identified, namely, the position of "Human-as-a-service," the confusion of terminology and crowd work platforms' abdication of responsibilities. Findings This paper explains that the three identified fundamental problems of crowd work render at least two lasting problems in crowd work-based research: first, the negligence of the teleological difference between crowd work and academic research; second, the ontological schism between scholars and institutional review boards (IRBs) in their ethical concerns and practices. Originality/value This paper critiques the foundation of crowd work-based research that has become growingly popular, extolled and taken for granted. Such a critique is deficient in literature and may seem a bit peculiar. However, we hold that it is time to take research ethics seriously in crowd work because we need to introspect and question ourselves as scholars: What is our motive or ethical stance in using crowd work for human subjects research? Is it for advancing scientific knowledge, promoting crowd workers' welfare, or predominantly for benefiting ourselves from the fast, cheap and "good" data via crowd work?

What Scholars and IRBs Talk when They Talk about the Belmont Principles in Crowd Work-Based Research

Undue Influence or Exploitation — A Qualitative Inquiry into an Ethical Dilemma Around Payment in Crowd Work-Based Research in the U.S.

Tragedy of the Commons in Crowd Work-Based Research

Tragedy of the Commons - A Critical Study of Data Quality and Validity Issues in Crowd Work-Based Research

The original sin of crowd work for human subjects research

Beyond Fair Pay: Ethical Implications of NLP Crowdsourcing

Resolving the Human Subjects Status of Machine Learning's Crowdworkers

When the Automated Fire Backfires: the Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer's Unfavorable Ethicality Inferences of the Company

The ethical ambiguity of AI data enrichment: Measuring gaps in research ethics norms and practices

Fairness Preferences, Actual and Hypothetical: A Study of Crowdworker Incentives

Public attitudes towards social media field experiments

A Collective Action Inspired Motivation Framework for Crowdsourcing

Do Groups Have Moral Standing in Unregulated mHealth Research?

Voices of Workers: Why a Worker-Centered Approach to Crowd Work Is Challenging

Researching the Powerful: A Call for the Reconstruction of Research Ethics

Actually, It's About Ethics in Computational Social Science: A Multi-party Risk-Benefit Framework for Online Community Research

Good Intentions, Bad Behavior: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature on Unethical Prosocial Behavior (UPB) at Work

Crowdsourcing Consumer Research

CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotation

Privacy in Crowdsourcing: a Review of the Threats and Challenges

Research bystanders, justice, and the state: Reframing the debate on third-party protections in health research