© Mike Molesworth Online Qualitative Research Mike Molesworth CEMP Learning & Teaching Fellow

© 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., , 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 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 Automatictranscript Low cost Group (Small) Group (large) Individual Natural setting Asynchronous Real-time Proprietary BBSYYYY?Y CommunityYYY?YYY Chat/IMYYYYYYY YYY?YY BlogYYY?YYY Potential Benefits/ Features

© Mike Molesworth Choice of technologies Absence of NVC Limitations of text- based communication Lack ofspontaneity Difficulties inmaintainingparticipation Anonymity Lack of sample control Non-natural setting Need for specialist user/research software* Proprietary BBSYYY? YY CommunityYYYY?Y Chat/IMY?Y??Y YYY? ? BlogYYY? Potential Limitations * Online discussions may require that the researcher understands aspects of online language/netiquetteonline language/netiquette

© Mike Molesworth Choice of methods Interview Group discussion Observation Ethnography (netnography) Online diary (blog) Text/language/semiotic analysis of content 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 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 CyberspaceA 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