© Mike Molesworth

Online Qualitative Research

Mike MolesworthCEMP Learning & Teaching Fellow

mmoleswo@bournemouth.ac.uk

© Mike Molesworth

Scope of online qualitative research

E.g., understand online customer support, or understand attitudes to

latest movies

E.g., set up a discussion on a forum, or observe an existing forum

E.g., email, forum, chat, online game, blog, website, sms

E.g., observation, interview, group discussion, semiotic analysis, online

ethnography

E.g., consent, privacy, anonymity

Researching online behaviour versus researching using interactive technologies

‘Contrived’ versus ‘natural’ approach

Choice of technologies

Choice of methods

Research ethics

Benefits and limitations

over traditional methods?

© 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

International

Autom

atic transcript

Low

cost

Group (Sm

all)

Group (large)

Individual

Natural setting

Asynchronous

Real-tim

e

Proprietary BBS Y Y Y Y ? Y

Community Y Y Y ? Y Y Y

Chat/IM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Email Y Y Y ? Y Y

Blog Y Y Y ? Y Y Y

Potential Benefits/ Features

© Mike Molesworth

Choice of technologies

Absence of N

VC

Lim

itations of text-based comm

unication

Lack of spontaneity

Difficulties in m

aintaining participation

Anonym

ity

Lack of sam

ple control

Non-natural setting

Need for specialist user/research

software*

Proprietary BBS Y Y Y ? Y Y

Community Y Y Y Y ? Y

Chat/IM Y ? Y ? ? Y

Email Y Y Y ? ?

Blog Y Y Y ?

Potential Limitations

* Online discussions may require that the researcher understands aspects of online language/netiquette

© Mike Molesworth

Choice of methods

Interview

Group discussion

Observation

Ethnography (netnography)

Online diary (blog)

Text/language/semiotic analysis of content

Email interviews with PR practitioners about their use of the web in a crisis

Discussion with students about their online behaviour in proprietary BBS

Observation of participants of a peer-to-peer file sharing system

Participation in an online game and monitoring in-game commercial activities

Online and mobile blog entries to monitor use and experiences of playing digital games

Analysis of advertising techniques used by eBayers

© Mike Molesworth

‘contrived’ versus ‘natural’ approach

Contrived

Controlled sample

Controlled participation

Identified sample

Easy disclosure

Protection of privacy

Natural

Validity of setting

Large samples

Potential for netnography

Low cost

Higher cost

Smaller sample

Non-natural setting

Validity of sample

Ethical concerns

© Mike Molesworth

Ethics

Informed consent

Risks to participants

Chasing ‘missing’ participants

Confidentiality/privacy

Anonymity

[but also legal issues relating to the collection, use and disclosure of information collected]

How and went do you inform participants that you are researching them? Can you assume that online groups are ‘public’ communication?

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?

If a participant leaves a discussion, can a research email or PM them to find out why?

Who can read discussions? If a participant is quoted in research, can they be identified by searching or the quote online?

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), pp61-71

• 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