1 / 19

Using the Internet in Psychology Research

Using the Internet in Psychology Research. Dr. Sarah Williams swilliams@bournemouth.ac.uk. Overview. Explore the use of the internet for qualitative methods Own experience/familiarity with qualitative design Key phenomenological/experiential difference in online interactions

cale
Download Presentation

Using the Internet in Psychology Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using the Internet in Psychology Research Dr. Sarah Williamsswilliams@bournemouth.ac.uk

  2. Overview • Explore the use of the internet for qualitative methods • Own experience/familiarity with qualitative design • Key phenomenological/experiential difference in online interactions • Provide descriptions and examples of 3 main online research methods • Virtual ethnography • Online focus groups • e-Interviews • Consider key considerations when using online research methods • Consider implications for research, teaching and supervision

  3. Qualitative Research • “[…] concerned with human experience in its richness” (Ashworth, 2003, p.4). • Focuses on meanings of experiences that are important to research participants. • Typically involve interviewing or observing people to gain a better understanding of experience of a particular phenomenon.

  4. Online Qualitative Research • Growing interest in use of internet to conduct qualitative research as: • An alternative to offline techniques – a practical tool for collecting data about everyday lived experience (e.g. living with an illness) • A way of exploring and understanding online phenomena (e.g. experience of illness support groups) “Internet data collection is now part of the mainstream canon of methodological choices” (Stewart & Williams, 2005)

  5. Virtual Ethnography • Also termed netnography (Kozinets, 2010) or online participant observation • Exploring online communities and culture in their natural settings • Uses participant (overt) or non-participant (covert) observation and often supplemented by conversation/interviews • Allows researchers to get close to naturally occurring online interactions • Focus on existing online phenomena • Different degrees of observation • Simply downloading and analysing online forum posts (e.g. Williams & Reid; 2007) • Becoming immersed in community life, gathering field notes, online extracts and screenshots, interactions with community users (e.g. Fox et al., 2005)

  6. Virtual Ethnography in Action • Fox, Ward & O’Rourke (2005) exploration of pro-anorexia websites • Included: • Participant Observation over 7 months (‘lurking’ then posting questions on discussion boards, Ward “announced her ‘presence’” as a researcher) • “Documentary analysis of non-interactive elements of websites” • Range of online interview methods

  7. Virtual Ethnography: Specific Considerations • Ethics!! • Do participants expect their information to be public or private? • Deception of covert observation vs. remaining integral to research aims of exploring naturalbehaviour • Are these issues any different to offline ethnography?? • Good ethical practice • Nature of websites = difficult to gain informed • consent from all site users (AOIR, 2002) • Permission from website owner • Anonymity/confidentiality when reporting results

  8. Online Focus Groups (OFGs) • Exploring perspectives and experiences in group interactions • Typically focuses on group understandings • OFGs can be • Synchronous (in real-time) e.g. instant messenger • Asynchronous (non real-time) e.g. online forums • More practical than face-to-face (f2f) FGs • Unique characteristics of asynchronous OFGs that are not comparable to f2f (e.g. explores experience over time, increased reflexivity; Williams et al., accepted).

  9. OFGs in Action • Williams & Reid (2010; 2012; in preparation) – Online focus groups with people with different views about anorexia nervosa • Three focus groups (12, 4 and 10 participants) • Also carried out e-interviews (see later) • All focus groups asynchronous lasting 4 weeks • International samples (USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Spain, …) • Hosted on University VLE (confidential and researcher controlled) • Introductory topic then question schedule one at a time (some serendipitous data) • Interaction between participants/role of researcher (importance of piloting)

  10. OFGs: Example

  11. OFGs: Important Considerations • Hosting your OFG • Example of Adams, Gavin and Rodham (2005) – OFG for self-harm hosted on public forum (safety, anonymity, confidentiality) • Participant interaction • making sure it is a group discussion and not a group interview! • different group dynamics online and lack of physical presence (more likely for quiet participants to feel comfortable contributing but means researcher role may be different)

  12. E-Interviews • Exploring individual lived experience/perspectives • one-to-one interactions between researcher and participant • Typically conducted by email • Utilised for same reasons as f2f interviews (Murray & Sixsmith, 1997) • Particular benefit for sensitive or difficult topics: • “divulging sensitive information to a computer may feel much less threatening than recounting it directly to another person” (Murray & Sixsmith, 1997, p.107). • More frank and candid responses

  13. E-Interviews in action • Williams and Reid (2010; 2012; in preparation) • One-to-one emails over period of time (asynchronous) • Sending questions one at a time • Interviews lasted between 2 weeks to up to 4 months • Dependent on external factors in participants’ lives (impact on data?) • Collecting lived experience of time (closer to participant experience, co-research approach) • Propensity to edit responses (pro or con?)

  14. “Things I liked about this format - being able to log on whenever it was convenient - I work odd hours so this is very useful to me. - having time to think before answering - I didn't feel "on the spot" or pressured to answer. It sometimes takes me awhile to think through the mess that's in my head. […] being able to hide behind closed doors while I "talk" about this.” Could think about answers and answer in one's own time... Could bounce of other peoples contributions. Could come back and amend or edit or add.... Felt good to be able to give own perspectives and own experiences, without the structure so often imposed by more "traditional" research techniques. Could come and go and do at own convenience... Didn't have to leave the house for it!!

  15. Considerations for online research • Cost-effectiveness • Convenience (for participant and researcher) • No transcription! • Anonymity! • Authenticity – how can we be sure a person is who they say they are! (implications for ethics e.g. age constrictions) • Written nature of communication (emotion) • Participant recruitment • Biased to internet users (though digital divide is decreasing) • No geographical boundaries • Hard to reach populations or those who find it difficult to take part in offline research (e.g. Adler & Zarchin, 2002)

  16. Implications for Teaching and Supervision • Important for students to be aware of these new approaches (growing importance of online methods and cyberpsychology) • Increased access to participants • Limited resources • Efficient way of giving students practice in qualitative skills (though important to consider differences to traditional methods). • Any others?

  17. Any Questions? • swilliams@bournemouth.ac.uk

More Related