jones qtpa artifact 3[1]€¦ · jones qtpa artifact 3 1 online qualitative research report project...

Running head: JONES QTPA ARTIFACT 3

Qualifying Transition Point Assessment

Artifact 3:

Online Qualitative Research Report

Kelly Jones

Mercer University

Summer 2012

JONES QTPA ARTIFACT 3 1

Online Qualitative Research Report

Project Introduction

For the third artifact of my QTPA, I researched the historical development and relevant

aspects of online, qualitative research methods. This report is designed to provide an overview of

online qualitative research as well as resources for other graduate students. This artifact includes

the following sections:

Introduction to online, qualitative research methods History of the WWW and early online, qualitative studies Web 2.0 and contemporary online research Sources of online data and data collection approaches Ethics, privacy, and trustworthiness Online qualitative methods and new literacies research Implications for future research in the field of Curriculum & Instruction Resources and Links Reflection References

This artifact is also available online at http://jonesqtpa.weebly.com


QTPA Artifact 3: Online Qualitative Research Report

“Understanding human relationships within this new mediascape will require us to embrace our anthropological mainstay, participant observation. We know the value of participant observation

in understanding social worlds. Now we need to participate in the new media in order to understand the new forms of sociality emerging in this quickly changing mediated world.”

(Wesch, 2007, 31) Introduction to Online Qualitative Research Methods

Since the mid-1990’s, the World Wide Web has become a world-wide communication

and cultural phenomenon. No longer the stuff of science fiction, today the internet and related

information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become a “central aspect of

contemporary network societies” (Loader & Dutton, 2012, p. 610). Researchers in social science

fields are using ICTs to conduct qualitative research through and about the internet, and the

professional literature includes complex descriptions of ever-evolving methods and discussions

of increasingly complex issues (Williams, 2007). In this paper, I examine some of the historical

aspects, contemporary approaches, ethical issues, and resources relating to online, qualitative

research methods and discuss several implications for graduate students and researchers studying

new literacies within the context of curriculum studies.

As a research tool, the internet provides access to new kinds of data and new

opportunities for presenting data. Additionally, the internet is both an evolving, intriguing

research focus and virtual qualitative study site (Baym, 2009a). There are two types of internet

inquiry: primary research and secondary research. Hewson & Laurent (2008) explain that

primary internet research begins with the development of a specific research question and

includes the collection and analysis of original data in order to address that question, while

secondary internet research encompasses the processes of finding, evaluating, and gaining access


to reference resources available online, such as “journals, newspapers, official documents,

library databases, and so on” (Hewson & Laurent, 2008, p. 58).

This paper will examine aspects of primary internet research, and though it is possible to

employ quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches in online research, I will focus

only on qualitative. Defining online, primary qualitative research is a bit more complex than this,

though. Orgad (2009) suggests that the methodology involves more than simply using the

internet “to facilitate data collection or data analysis” and instead, defines online qualitative

research as “inquiry into internet phenomena” and as “the study of the multiple meanings and

experiences that emerge around the internet in a particular context” (p. 34). This approach to

qualitative online research is also known as internet inquiry, online ethnography, virtual

ethnography, qualitative internet research, and internet-mediated research (IMR) (Baym, 2009a;

Gatson, 2011; Merriam, 2009; Hine, 2008).

As with the terminology, the methods for online research are not as clearly defined or

understood as traditional qualitative approaches. As noted by Merriam (2009), “This is new

territory, with unfamiliar rules that change as quickly as they are identified” (p.160).

Additionally, as the methods have changed, so have the meanings of ideas that used to be clearly

defined and collectively understood by the professional research community. Gatson (2011)

explains, “The site of the online ethnography necessarily pushes the definitional boundaries of

generally accepted concepts such as self, community, privacy, and text” (p. 515). Online

participants and researchers have multiple modes for defining themselves and representing their

identities online, where avatars and usernames are more common than real names or physical

presence. Text becomes multimodal; online texts may include photos, audio, video, and

hyperlinks. Privacy issues are greatly debated and difficult to clarify. Communities are not


limited by geography or formed through historical, familial bonds. According to Angrosino &

Rosenberg (2011), virtual communities are characterized “by computer-mediated communication

and online interaction. They are ‘communities of interest’ rather than communities of residence.

Although some can last a while, they are mostly ephemeral in nature, and sometimes even by

design” (p. 473). Researchers from a variety of disciplines have studied and are currently

studying various characteristics and practices of virtual communities.

The emerging online ethnographical approach to qualitative research began in the early

1990’s and is only about twenty years old, but due to the work of many early adopters, there is

already a “vast tradition from which to draw” (Gatson, 2011, p. 514). Some researchers find

online ethnography to be more than just feasible; in some cases, it can be both innovative and

rewarding. As Gaiser and Schreiner (2009) state, “as these various computer protocols enable

individuals to interact in new ways, they open new spaces and forms of interaction that warrant

research. Likewise, they make it possible to conduct research in new ways” (p. 5). Since the

development of the first computer network in 1968, the global, exponential growth of the

Internet and mobile ICTs has been “one of the most dynamic areas of technological and social

innovation worldwide” (Loader & Dutton, 2012, p. 609). Online qualitative researchers have

been studying this phenomenon almost since its inception, so the history of online research is

practically paralleled to the history of the World Wide Web.

Historical Overview

The Internet (originally named ARPANET) was developed by the Department of Defense

in the 1960’s to provide security against data loss in the event that a military base or government

building was destroyed. By the 1980’s, the Internet was publicly accessible (though difficult to

navigate) and offered discussion forums and newsgroups for users. These forums soon became


the first sites of online qualitative research as psychologists and others studied the ways in which

people communicated via text-based internet communication technologies, known as ICTs

(Hine, 2008; Fischer, Lyon & Zeitlyn, 2008; Williams, 2007).

According to Hine (2008), “The idea of applying ethnographic techniques to the study of

Internet interactions became popular in the 1990s, when it became clear that interesting social

formations were beginning to emerge in what we had then come to call ‘cyberspace’” (p. 258).

Hine (2008) also notes that “the first studies to describe themselves as ethnographies of online

communities began to appear in the mid 1990s” (p. 258). Among these early works was Nancy

Baym’s 1995 study of soap opera fans and their Usenet online discussion group.

One of the first published descriptions of virtual communities, though, was not written by

a researcher. Instead, it was written by then journalist Howard Rheingold, whose 1993 book The

Virtual Community detailed his experience with an online community, and provided a helpful,

rich description. (Gatson, 2011). Hine (2008) also tells us that Rheingold emphasized the

personal connections that people were creating through their participations in online discussion

boards. Following is an excerpt from Rheingold’s (1993) work, which is now considered a

classic description of online communities:

People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue,

engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share

emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose

them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk. People in virtual

communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies

behind. You can’t kiss anybody and nobody can punch you in the nose, but a lot can

happen within those boundaries. (p. 3)


Rheingold’s membership in the online community provided him with the access, insider

knowledge, recognition, and relationships needed to produce such descriptive work. Gatson

(2011) tells us that, like Rheingold, many online researchers are grounded as members of the

online communities they study before they become researchers, and notes that several virtual

ethnographers began as students examining the online communities to which they belonged

before conducting their studies. Williams (2007) credits Rheingold for promoting awareness of

the ways in which people were using computer-mediated communication as part of their

everyday social interaction and attributes the term and common definition of ‘virtual community’

to Rheingold.

It is important for online researchers to learn about the history and progress of the field,

both within the context of internet history as well as the wider history of human communication

technologies. Historical understanding is required in order to gain critical appreciation of the

cultural benefits and dangers associated with the sources and tools of online research, especially

because some of these issues have been examined through the context of older technologies such

as writing, radio, and television. Just as writers and journalists should understand the history and

significance of the printing press, online researchers should be knowledgeable about key

developments such as the inventions of the Mosiac browser and YouTube. Baym’s (2009b)

rationale for historical understanding provides a thoughtful perspective:

Most communication technologies throughout history have raised issues about the quality

of interaction, the nature of community, the status of relationships, the authenticity of

identity, the safety of children, and the limits of trust and privacy. One research priority

for the future is thus to recognize our past. We need to link our theory, framing, research


inquiries, and findings to the history on which the production, reception, adaptation, and

everyday use of technologies rests. (p. 720)

The following timeline highlights key technological developments of the last forty-five

years in attempt to frame today’s popular ICT technologies within a larger historical, from the

first computer network to the release of the first iPad:

Year Event

1968

Department of Defense commissions ARPANET for research into networking (ARPANET will become the Internet)

1969 ARPANET revealed at UCLA

UCLA computer sent data to a computer at Stanford

1970 Associated Press sends news by computer

1971 ARPANET has 22 connections between universities and government bases

1972 Xerox invents the first computer with a mouse and a graphical user interface (GUI) – icons replace coding

Email is invented by Roy Tomlinson

1973 Xerox sets up a LAN (local area network) called Ethernet

A computer in England connects with a computer in Norway through ARPANET

1974 ARPANET becomes the Internet

1977 Apple invents the floppy disc

1978 Intel develops the 16-bit processor

1979 News groups available on the Internet

USENET begins

1982 5.5 million personal computers have been sold

1983 The computer is named Man of the Year by Time Magazine

Internet domain names are developed to replace numerical addresses

1984 William Gibson coins the term "cyberspace" in his novel Neuromancer.

1986 Listserv mailing list program is invented

1988 Two new words added to lexicon: Hacker and Worm

The first hacking/virus crimes are reported

1990 Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web at CERN in Europe

1991 Internet becomes available for commercial public use

HTML code is developed for web page design


1992 Text-based browser opens World Wide Web for general usage.

1993 Graphical user interface, Mosaic, is developed for the World Wide Web.

Webcams are invented

Howard Rheingold published The Virtual Community

Nokia sends text messages between mobile phones.

1994 Two million computers connected to the Internet.

The Netscape Navigator replaces Mosaic as a World Wide Web browser

Yahoo is born

Banner ads and spam become daily annoyances

1995 Amazon.com opens virtual sales doors

1996 Microsoft develops Hotmail, free web-based email

1997 Streaming audio and video available on the WWW

1998 Google is born

Blogs are invented

1999 150 million Internet users can access more than 800 million web pages.

2001 Instant messaging is invented

More than half of all Americans now use the Internet

Birth of Wikipedia

2002 Blogs now have comment features

Web 2.0

2003 MySpace opens

Second Life is developed

Skype is invented

2004 Facebook arrives

95% of public libraries in the USA offer Internet access

Podcasting is invented

Birth of Gmail

World of Warcraft online

2005 First video is uploaded to YouTube

2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year is YOU (creators of Web 2.0 content)

2007 Apple releases the first iPhone

2009 Cloud computing becomes publicly available

2010 Apple releases the first iPad

(Williams, 2007; University of Minnesota, 2012; National Academy of Engineering, 2012; Fischer, Lyon & Zeitlyn, 2008, Hine, 2008)


Web 2.0 and Contemporary Online Research (Research 2.0)

New community spaces form online every day, with new tools and practices for

interacting, sharing information, and collaborating. Social research methods have to adapt in

order to collect and analyze data from these sites and the people who participate in them.

Adaptation allows researchers to “take advantage of the technologies that forge and mediate

these social worlds.” (Williams, 2007, p. 20).

Online social spaces today are vastly different from those studied by ethnographers in the

1990s. Sites are multilayered, with groups blogging and Twittering and podcasting together,

sometimes all at once. Groups overlap and intersect, and participants may belong to multiple

online sites or virtual communities. Participants use specific media for specific purposes, such as

sharing videos through YouTube, sharing photos through Flickr, sharing writing through blogs,

and sharing daily updates through Facebook. The groups today are no longer bound to online

spaces as they were structured even five years ago – thanks to the development of wireless

networks, smart phones, and mobile devices, participants can interact online without computers

(Baym, 2009a). These changes offer new sites and opportunities for study, but present challenges

and potential roadblocks to researchers as well.

Due to traditional methods and expectations of academic research and publication, those

studying the Internet may face serious limitations. Research results may become outdated or be

viewed historical descriptions almost as soon as they are published (or sometimes even before)

as the site studied might transform into something unrecognizable within weeks (or hours) of the

study’s completion. Loader & Dutton (2012) note, “This raises questions about the usefulness of

traditional social scientific methodologies which take more time to be proposed, funded,

designed, undertaken, analysed, published, and disseminated than the actual rate of change of the


online environment” (p. 612). Additionally, researchers who have been working online for a

while will have to adjust as online environments shift from text-based to visual, multimodal

spaces where participants, including those who would prefer to just observe, are expected to

interact and represent their presence through use of an avatar (Williams, 2007).

Ultimately, though, the online researcher’s main concern is the quality of the work. As

Baym (2009b) states, “To do good qualitative internet research is to do good qualitative

research” (p. 189). The goal is to provide rich, thick descriptions to give readers the sense of

being there and to give other researchers the descriptions they need to consider and compare

contexts across various domains. Documentation is critical so new methods and strategies can be

evaluated and utilized by other researchers (Baym, 2009a).

Although the potential for new studies may seem boundless as new worlds and

opportunities open online, researchers must continue to design and plan projects that are practical

and achievable. As Hine (2009) states, “Even though the internet extends the potential spatial

remit of our studies, we can still only engage with so many people in depth, conduct so many

interviews, or analyze so many web sites” (p. 18). Research projects must be designed within

specific boundaries and include limitations so that the researcher is able to deeply examine the

site or phenomenon being studied while considering how the culture of that virtual community or

space is structured (Hine, 2009). Baym (2009a) offers a list of six criteria for online qualitative

researchers to keep in mind when designing and conducting virtual studies. Quality internet-

based studies, according to these criteria:

1. Are grounded in theory and data

2. Demonstrate rigor in data collection and analysis

3. Use multiple strategies to obtain data


4. Take into account the perspective of participants

5. Demonstrate awareness of and self-reflexivity regarding the research process

6. Take into consideration interconnections between the internet and the life-world within

which it is situated (Baym, 2009, p. 179)

Online qualitative research should be presented within relevant historical context and

theoretical tradition(s) so that the work can provide insight into existing frameworks and

theories. Instead of researching new technologies for their own sake, researchers should

intentionally examine the ways in which new technologies are different from previous

technologies, and the ways in which the use of these technologies relates to other areas of

research (Baym, 2009a). Merriam (2009) reminds us that the analysis, description, and

discussion of the characteristics of online data is of vital importance to the field.

Data Sources and Data Collection

There are two main types of internet data and two approaches to data collection. Data are

categorized as online data or offline data, and can be collected either synchronously (in real time,

such as live chats or Skype meetings) or asynchronously (such as discussion boards or email

messages). Online data are collected through the Internet and ICTs, for example, blog posts or

Second Life participant observations. Offline data are gathered through traditional methods such

as face to face interviews, but the topic of the interview is related to the internet or online

community practices. Internet data include texts, images, and audio/video. Texts may include

online discussion board posts, blog entries, email, notes from interviews, video or chat room

transcripts, etc. Images may include screen captures of web pages or photos posted by users on

social networking sites. Audio/video sources include podcasts, YouTube uploads, VoiceThread


contributions, and multimedia blog posts or wiki entries (Orgad, 2009; Hewson & Laurent,

2008).

One of the best ways to gather meaningful ICT data is through interaction with

participants in virtual sites. Lurking, the practice of observing online participants while

remaining invisible or inactive, is generally frowned upon by members of online communities.

The internet is a social space, and social interaction may lead to new and intriguing possibilities

for research (Hine, 2009). Data collection strategies include online questionnaires, interviews

(both synchronous and asynchronous), observations, and document/artifact analysis (Hewson &

Laurent, 2008).

It can be difficult to determine if synchronous or asynchronous strategies will yield better

results, as each approach can impact the quality and type of data collected. Some internet

researchers, such as Hewson & Laurent (2008) recommend asynchronous approaches because

they “tend to generate richer, more detailed, elaborate, and reflective data, … Asynchronous

approaches allow respondents to participate at times convenient to themselves, to potentially

engage in greater levels of reflectivity and reflexivity, and to consult external documents or

sources (p. 68). Other researchers, such as Gaiser and Schreiner (2009), recommend synchronous

approaches such as instant messaging because “data are collected more rapidly than in an email

method, and the interaction has a feel more like that of a traditional interview or focus group” (p.

61).

The type of data and approach needed for each study should be determined by the

research question, purpose of the study, practical boundaries of the project, and the and the

technology abilities and knowledge of the researcher. Whether the data are collected online or

offline, synchronously or asynchronously, in text form or in multimedia form, the researcher


should focus on collecting high quality data. Data collected should be based on a clear rationale;

“should fit with the question and the context should convincingly support the claims being made;

should be used reflexively and be context-sensitive; and, finally, should be ethically grounded”

(Orgad, 2009, p. 51).

Ethics, Privacy, and Trustworthiness

All data should be collected, generated, analyzed, stored, and presented in an ethical

manner while protecting the privacy of participants and ensuring the trustworthiness of the study

and the researcher.

Privacy is a key concern for all researchers. Elm (2009) states, “In the research arena,

privacy can be seen as safeguarding the research subjects’ right to integrity and self-

determination – to decide for themselves what kind of information to share with the researcher

and under what conditions (p. 70). Informed consent – where participants agree to participate in

a research study and specify how their information may be used by the researcher - is usually

required before studies are conducted.

Gaining informed consent and protecting participants’ privacy can be difficult in online

research, though. It is difficult to define public and private spaces online, and can be impossible

to identify participants who use only nicknames or usernames. In synchronous communications,

participants may log on and off too quickly for researchers to introduce themselves or explain the

purpose of the study. It may be impossible for researchers to contact participants who posted

anonymous messages to guest books or discussion forums (Elm, 2009).

If the contributors can be contacted, however, it is best to ask permission to include them

in the study even if their messages were posted in public sites using pseudonyms. Many online

community members have expectations of privacy, even though their posts can be read by


anyone with internet access. Elm (2009) explains, “in attempting to make sense of the notions of

privacy, social researchers must consider the intended audience for an individual’s online

expression: Even those who are comfortable making all the contributions private may still resent

their use as a topic of research” (p. 84).

Participants may be known by their usernames or avatars in many online circles, so

additional steps must be taken to protect their privacy. Directly quoting participants can also be

problematic since online text can be searched for and easily found. (Hine, 2008). These

potentially difficult aspects should not discourage researchers, though. As Hine (2008) notes,

“The very public and searchable nature of the Internet breaks down the compartmentalizations

upon which many of our ethical practices habitually rely. There are, however, also opportunities

to inform and empower research participants, through provision of additional information” (.p

266). Researchers can publish Facebook pages or blogs or wiki sites to share work with

participants, use ICTs to inform participants of the study’s progress, and share findings with

participants before publishing the study (Hine, 2008).

While researchers should always act ethically and “ensure that our research subjects are

not harmed, humiliated, or offended” (Elm, 2009, p. 85), there are no specific rules governing

online research (Angrosino & Rosenberg, 2011; Elm, 2009; Hine, 2008). The constantly-

changing nature of the internet makes it impossible to foresee all of the ethical dilemmas that

researchers may face online (Elm, 2009).

There are, however, a few ethical principles that most online researchers agree on, such

as alerting online community members before observing their interactions, gaining informed

consent whenever possible, assigning pseudonyms even to participants who use online

nicknames, following any rules posted by the group (Angrosino & Rosenberg, 2011; Elm, 2009;


Hine, 2008, Baym, 2009a). Online researchers can also embrace the social nature of the web by

inviting participants more deeply into the work. Angrosino & Rosenberg (2011) explain, “Some

online ethnographers… share drafts of research reports for comment by members of the virtual

community. By allowing members to help decide how their comments are to be used, the

researcher furthers the goals of collaborative research” (p. 473).

New Literacies Research

My upcoming dissertation study focuses on self-sponsored online writing groups, and

much of my theoretical framework is based in new literacies studies. There are many

opportunities for online, qualitative research in this field because many of the practices of

interest to scholars can only be conducted through ICTs. The “new” in new literacies studies

describes the type of practice, and not necessarily the temporal aspect of the practice. Lankshear

and Knobel (2007), key scholars in the field, provide an elegant description of new literacy

practices:

The more a literacy practice that is mediated by digital encoding privileges participation

over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence

over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship,

dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over ‘normalization’,

innovation and evolution over stability and fixity, creative innovative rule breaking over

generic purity and policing, relationship over information broadcast, do-it-yourself

creative production over professional service delivery, and so on, the more sense we

think it makes to regard it as a new literacy” (p. 228).

In order to learn more about new literacies studies and online qualitative methodology, I

searched located five articles (Davies, 2006; Jacobs, 2006; Lam, 2000, Black, 2009; Oliver &


Carr, 2009; Guzzetti & Gamboa, 2005) that were cited by several of the key scholars whose

work I am reading for my dissertation literature, along with a recently published dissertation

(Shultz, 2011). It was helpful to identify the topics, practices, sites, participants, and

methodologies featured in these studies. A brief overview of this analysis follows:

Table 1: Description of six relevant new literacy online qualitative studies

Researcher(s) & Year

Focus / Practices being studied

Virtual Site(s) Strategies/Methodology

Davies (2006) Photo sharing Flickr.com Email questionnaires and analysis of online artifacts, including photos tags, member messages, and posts

Lam (2000) Student-authored electronic text; English Language Learners

Teenager’s personal web page, instant messaging, emails

Case study; observations, interviews and online artifact analysis

Oliver & Carr (2009)

Learning through online gaming; virtual communities of practice

World of Warcraft (WoW) site

Qualitative interview study; participants were recruited through online networks; interviews were conducting online via chat within the WoW virtual game spaces

Black (2009) Fan fiction; self-sponsored writing groups; informal, online writing spaces; extracurricular writing and English Language Learners

Fanfiction.net Online case study; participant observation with 3 teenage participants; online text analysis and interviews; analysis of fan fiction posts and site members’ critiques, posts, and messages

Guzzetti & Gamboa (2005)

Informal writing; online journaling

LiveJournal.com Online case study of two students; virtual observations, interviews, analysis of online writing artifacts

Shultz (2011) Fan fiction writing; literacy sponsorship online; digital

Fanfiction.net and LiveJournal.com

Online case study of six college students; analysis of fan fiction writing, site member posts and


extracurriculum critiques, email interviews and chat-based interviews; cross-comparison analysis of two fan fiction sites

These studies represent only a small fraction of the topics, sites, and issues currently

being studied by new literacies scholars and researchers interested in digital media and learning.

Additional current research topics include game design, virtual worlds, transmedia storytelling,

online video analysis, and social network analysis (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007; Alvermann,

2008).

Lankshear and Knobel (2007) note that while education researchers often feel that their

work contribute to the realm of teaching and learning and focus on school settings, other

approaches and topics are worthwhile and could potentially provide valuable insights that are

applicable to education. They suggest four types of studies for new literacies researchers to

consider: “Let’s See, Try On, Educationally Applicable, and a Research Program Orientation

(Lankshear & Knobel, 2007, p. 230). These categories are described briefly below:

A) ‘Let’s See’ Research: the goal of these studies is to deeply examine and describe new

social practices and literacies made possible by new technologies

B) ‘Try On’ Research: the purpose of these studies is to apply different theories to new

online spaces or practices, or to combine theories when examining new literacy

practices

C) Educationally Applicable Research: The purpose of these studies is not to introduce

new literacy practices or tools (such as video games, for example) directly into school

but rather to examine principles of learning that underpin new literacy practices in

order to inform instructional practices and curriculum


D) A Research Program Orientation: collaborative, large-scale projects such as the

Digital Media and Learning projects sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation

(Lankshear & Knobel, 2007)

My proposed dissertation study falls into both the “Let’s See” and “Educationally

Applicable” categories. I hope to gain a deep understanding of National Novel Novel Writing

Month (an online, out-of-school writing community) as a new kind of writing group and also

examine implications that may be relevant within the context of curriculum & instruction,

particularly related to 21st century, post-secondary writing.

Implications

Over the last forty-five years, ICTs have become a powerful social force, shaping and

shaped by 21st century culture. Internet connected today is less of an action and more of a state of

being. Fischer, Lyon & Zeitlyn (2008) observe, “Access to the Internet has changed from

episodic connections using simple modems to pervasive connections via broadband, and a strong

trend towards ‘always-on’ mobile connections” ( p. 529). Today’s mobile, networked ICTs have

far-reaching impact for our society, schools, and scholarship. Alvermann (2008) notes, “Like the

teaching profession, researchers are feeling the effects of digitalized knowledge and networked

environments, especially in terms of the questions they ask and the methodologies and analytic

tools they choose.” (p. 16). It is, therefore, imperative for curriculum scholars to be

knowledgeable of online research methods and studies.

There are also important implications for graduate students and those just beginning

academic careers. Hewson & Laurent (2008) make two important points for future curriculum

scholars to consider:


“Firstly, Internet-mediated research presents a promising, emergent method, which the

evidence to data suggests has the potential to support and enhance primary research

within the social and behavioral sciences in a variety of ways. Secondly, many issues and

procedures in IMR remain to be further explored and developed, indictating that the

already growing body of research in this area is likely to continue to flourish” (p. 72).

Online research is an emerging, growing field of study and one that is relevant in multiple

disciplines. New ICTs are constantly being developed while existing ICTs are being updated and

enhanced, and each offers new sites, practices, and considerations for research.

Resources and Links

The following resources are recommended for graduate students or researchers who are new to

online qualitative methods:

Professional Organizations

o Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) http://aoir.org

AoIR is a multi-disciplinary, international academic organization who

mission is to advance the field of Internet studies. It was founded in 1999

during meetings at the International Communication Conference.

o Pew Internet & American Life Project http://pewinternet.org

The Pew Internet & American Life Project a project of the Pew Research

Center, which is a nonpartisan think tank. This project conducts research

on the impact of the internet on life in America, and publishes the data

online so it can be used by researchers, scholars, and analysts

Web Sites

o Mediated Cultures http://mediatedcultures.net


This site features digital ethnography projects led by cultural

anthropologist Michael Wesch, who researches the effects of social media

on contemporary society

Professor Wesch’s TED Talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyCAtyNYHw

o The Qualitative Report http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/

This peer-reviewed online journal is published weekly

o Mobile and Cloud Qualitative Research Apps

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/apps.html

This list of research applications is published by The Qualitative Report

o Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research

o Christine Hine home page

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/people/christine_hine/

o Annette Markham home page http://www.markham.internetinquiry.org/

o Nancy Baym home page http://www.nancybaym.com/

Scholarly Journals:

o New media & society http://nms.sagepub.com/

o Information Society http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/

o Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication http://jcmc.indiana.edu/

Reflection

This artifact challenged me to locate relevant and seminal resources, compile my own

timeline, gain familiarity with the top scholars in the field, and reconsider the implications of


what I have learned in terms of my upcoming dissertation study. I gained a deeper, more critical

appreciation of the complicated landscape of online qualitative research, especially in terms of

ethics and privacy issues.

Before writing this artifact, as a researcher, I was excited about the enormous amounts of

potential data available to me online. Now, as a member of an online community, a blogger, and

a more informed researcher, I realize that my participation in sites that are publically accessible

does not equate in my mind with public writing. I would feel as if my privacy had been violated

if a researcher studied my blog without my consent, even though I publish under a pseudonym.

My expectation for that space is that only friendly readers, most of whom are also bloggers,

participate with my blog. While this expectation may be technically incorrect, it is part of the

culture of the blogosphere. Any researcher wishing to study that space would have to understand

the dynamics of the sharing and support that part of the context of my blogging community. I am

glad to have gained this understanding before writing the IRB for my dissertation study.

The specifics of this stance and the disjuncture between my feelings as a researcher and

an online participant are problematic and will require reflection on my part, but hopefully my

experiences as both participant and researcher will make me more aware of the needs of my

future study participants. I know now, for example, that I would not be comfortable conducting a

study even in spaces considered public without informed consent, if gaining consent is at all

feasible.

I now face the challenge of providing rich description without violating my participant’s

expectations of privacy. If, for example, I include direct quotes or excerpts from participants

blog posts, those words can be searched and someone could potentially find and identify my

participants. I know now that I will only quote from interview materials gained through private


communication, such as email, chat, or Skype, that cannot be searched and tagged back to my

participants. I know now that I want to make my work available for participants to read and

provide feedback, and will probably take up Hine’s (2008) suggestion and use a private research

blog to communicate with my study participants. I have also learned that there is much more for

me to learn in terms of data analysis and presentation. It was extremely helpful to find scholars,

Nancy Baym in particular, whose work might inform both the theoretical framework and

methodology of my dissertation study

Additionally, this project has influenced me as a curriculum developer. The vastly

complex issues of privacy online is important for researchers from many disciplines, but it is also

enormously important for K-12 and college students today, especially those who blog, publish

fan fiction, and participate in social media sites like Facebook and YouTube. These new literacy

practices must become part of our curriculum so students can join the conversations researchers

are having concerning ethics and privacy; these conversations and debates are vitally relevant to

students’ out-of-school online participatory literacy activities. Parents and teachers need to be

informed, network literate, and ready to engage students in case studies and conversations.

This project provided additional opportunities for me to ground my own theoretical

framework and connect my upcoming dissertation themes and topics to the work of other

scholars and previous research traditions. I have gained a better understanding of the emerging

traditions that provide historical and theoretical insight into my own research questions.


References

Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom

practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8-19.

Angrosino, M. & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Observations on observation: Continuities and

challenges. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative

research, 4th ed (467-478). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Baym, N. K. (2009a). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research? In A.M.

Markham, & N. A. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (173-

197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Baym, N. K. (2009b). A call for grounding in the face of blurred boundaries. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 720-723.

Black, R.W. (2009). Online Fanfiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the

Teaching of English, 43(4): 397-425.

Davies, J. (2006). Affinities and beyond. Developing new ways of seeing in online spaces.

E-Learning 3(2): 217-234.

Elm, M. S. (2009). How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative internet

research? In A. M. Markham & N. A. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations

about method (69-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fischer, M., Lyon, S. & Zeitlyn, D. (2008). The internet and the future of social science research.

In N. G. Fielding, R. M. Lee & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research

methods (519-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gaiser, T. & Schreiner, A.E. (2009). A guide to conducting online research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.


Gatson, S. N. (2011). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4th

ed (513-527). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Guzzetti, B. & Gamboa, M. (2005). Online Journaling: The Informal Writings of Two

Adolescent Girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 168-206.

Hewson, C. & Laurent, D. (2008). Research design and tools for internet research. In N. G.

Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods

(58-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hine, C. (2008). Virtual ethnography: Modes, varieties, and affordances. In N. G. Fielding, R.

M. Lee & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (257-270).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hine, C. (2009). How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects?

In A. M. Markham & N. A. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method

(1-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hull, G. & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and

research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575-611.

Lam, W.S.E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on

the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457-483.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider

perspectives. E–Learning, 4(7), 224-240.

Loader, B. D. & Dutton, W. H. (2012). A decade in internet time. Information, Communication

& Society, 15(5), 609-615.


Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

National Academy of Engineering. (2012). Internet Timeline.

http://www.nae.edu/Activities/Projects/Awards/DraperPrize/PastWinners/page2001/Histo

ryoftheInternet/InternetTimeline.aspx

Oliver, M. & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to

explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3),

444-457.

Orgad, S. (2009). How can researchers make sense of the issues involved in collecting and

interpreting online and offline data? In A.M. Markham & N. A. Baym (Eds.), Internet

inquiry: Conversations about method (33-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Boston,

MA: Longman.

Shultz, S. L. (2011). Exploring literacy sponsorship in the digital extracurriculum: How students

participation in fan fiction sites can inform composition pedagogy. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Michigan). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

University of Minnesota. (2012). Media History Project. http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu.

Wesch, M. (2007). What is Web 2.0? What does it mean for anthropology? Anthropology News.

Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3596021/What-is-Web-20-What-does-it-

mean-for-Anthropology

Williams, M. (2007) Avatar watching: participant observation in graphical online environments.

Qualitative Research. 7(1), 5–24. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

jones qtpa artifact 3[1]€¦ · jones qtpa artifact 3 1 online qualitative research report project...

Documents