Online Qualitative Research Mike Molesworth CEMP Learning Teaching

Online Qualitative Research Mike Molesworth CEMP Learning & Teaching Fellow mmoleswo@bournemouth. ac. uk © Mike Molesworth

Scope of online qualitative research Benefits and limitations over traditional methods? Researching online behaviour versus researching using interactive technologies E. g. , understand online customer support, or understand attitudes to latest movies Choice of technologies E. g. , email, forum, chat, online game, blog, website, sms Choice of methods ‘Contrived’ versus ‘natural’ approach Research ethics E. g. , observation, interview, group discussion, semiotic analysis, online ethnography E. g. , set up a discussion on a forum, or observe an existing forum E. g. , consent, privacy, anonymity © Mike Molesworth

Researching online behaviour versus researching using interactive technologies “of particular relevance to the online researcher is the transdiciplinary literature which documents aspects of internet communication and human behaviour online…[but]…It is perhaps surprising that the suitability of the internet for conducting research remains relatively unexplored…. While ground-breaking books such as…Jones, (1999) examine a range of theoretical and practical aspects associated with researching the internet, they largely stop short of considering the internet as a data gathering tool. ” Chris Mann & Fiona Stewart, (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research, Sage © Mike Molesworth

Researching online behaviour Communities of consumption Fan and protest blogs Consumer reviews Price Comparison sites Online buying (and selling) MMORPGs All of these include consumer-produced content that may be analysed qualitatively © Mike Molesworth

Researching using interactive technologies Proprietary BBS Email Blog Chat/IM Community All of these allow for the collection of qualitative data about a wide range of topics © Mike Molesworth

Choice of technologies Community Y Y Y ? Y Chat/IM Y Y Y Email Y Y Y ? Y Blog Y Y Y ? Y Real-time ? Asynchronous Group (large) Y Natural setting Group (Small) Y Individual Low cost Y Automatic transcript Y International Proprietary BBS Potential Benefits/ Features Y Y Y Y © Mike Molesworth

Choice of technologies ? Community Y Y ? Y Chat/IM Y ? ? Email Y Y Y ? Blog Y Y Y ? Y Need for specialist user/research software* Y Non-natural setting Lack of sample control Lack of spontaneity Y Anonymity Limitations of textbased communication Y Difficulties in maintaining participation Absence of NVC Proprietary BBS Potential Limitations Y Y ? * Online discussions may require that the researcher understands aspects of online language/netiquette © Mike Molesworth

Choice of methods Interview Email interviews with PR practitioners about their use of the web in a crisis Group discussion Discussion with students about their online behaviour in proprietary BBS Observation of participants of a peer-topeer file sharing system Ethnography (netnography) Participation in an online game and monitoring in-game commercial activities Online diary (blog) Text/language/semiotic analysis of content Online and mobile blog entries to monitor use and experiences of playing digital games Analysis of advertising techniques used by e. Bayers © Mike Molesworth

‘contrived’ versus ‘natural’ approach Contrived Natural Controlled sample Validity of setting Controlled participation Large samples Identified sample Easy disclosure Potential for netnography Protection of privacy Low cost Higher cost Validity of sample Smaller sample Ethical concerns Non-natural setting © Mike Molesworth

Ethics [but also legal issues relating to the collection, use and disclosure of information collected] Informed consent How and went do you inform participants that you are researching them? Can you assume that online groups are ‘public’ communication? Risks to participants Is there the potential that one participant might harass another, aided by anonymity? Is there are risk that the research process gets participants to disclose information which they otherwise would not and in a ‘public’ space? Chasing ‘missing’ participants If a participant leaves a discussion, can a research email or PM them to find out why? Confidentiality/privacy Who can read discussions? If a participant is quoted in research, can they be identified by searching or the quote online? Anonymity Where a site is cited in research, will this attract unwanted attention? How do you ensure that participants know who you are and exactly what you are doing? © Mike Molesworth

Summary Interactive technology presents new topics to research qualitatively as well as new approaches to qualitative research. Benefits are seductive, but these might not blind us to some serious limitations And in particular ethics issues need careful consideration “But internet communication need not be limited to text. As the capacity of the internet itself and the connections to it increase, voice and video communications will become possible, eliminating the obstacle of the keyboard. From a research point of view, it could be argued that this will simply get us back to where we are now”. Chris Mann & Fiona Stewart, (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research, Sage © Mike Molesworth

Bibliography and Resources • Mann C & Stewart F, (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research, Sage • Kozinets V (2002), The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (Feb), pp 61 -71 • Paccagnella L (1997), Getting the seats of your pants dirty: strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities, Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3(1) • A Debate about the Ethics of Fair Practices for Collecting Social Science Data in Cyberspace • Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities • What is special about the ethical issues in online research? • The internet as a medium for qualitative research © Mike Molesworth