Online Qualitative Research
Mike Molesworth
CEMP Learning & Teaching Fellow
[email protected]
© 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
Y
Y
Y
?
Community
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Chat/IM
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Email
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Blog
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Real-time
Y
Asynchronous
Proprietary BBS
Natural setting
Individual
Group (large)
Group (Small)
Low cost
Automatic
transcript
International
Potential
Benefits/
Features
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
© Mike Molesworth
Choice of technologies
Y
?
Community
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
Y
Chat/IM
Y
?
Y
?
?
Email
Y
Y
Y
?
Blog
Y
Y
Y
?
Need for specialist
user/research
software*
Difficulties in
maintaining
participation
Y
Non-natural setting
Lack of
spontaneity
Lack of sample
control
Limitations of textbased
communication
Y
Anonymity
Absence of
NVC
Proprietary BBS
Potential
Limitations
Y
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
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 eBayers
© 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), 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
© Mike Molesworth