Online qualitative research and metaverses

Texto da comunicación

Introduction

In order to produce scientific knowledge, researchers in human and social sciences use different methods and methodological approaches. These approaches differ according to their perception of reality, their methods of data collection and the way they develop theories. A critical examination of these methods used in contemporary science has given rise to various epistemological positions which depend on how the researchers view the goal of science, what is scientific or not, the production of knowledge, etc. In a world characterized by the proliferation of information and communication technologies and their impact on all areas of life, an analysis of the evolution of the intellectual quest looking to explore and understand this world is needed. One of the most significant changes facing the contemporary world is its digitalisation. The production of knowledge has been profoundly affected by this digitalisation and by the emergence of Internet. Internet has transformed the subject, the researcher, the interaction between the researcher and the subject, and also the publishing and the communication of scientific knowledge. An inventory of scientific publications since 1991 shows how Internet and its implications have become both a research object and a way to do research about other objects. This new situation has not escaped to the critical review of epistemologists since the application of qualitative and quantitative approaches to online populations continues to be methodologically, philosophically and epistemologically evaluated (Baym, 1995; Correll, 1995; Markham, 1998; Witmer et al., 1999; Gaston and Zweerink, 2004).

Online research is a growing scientific domain starting to have its own scholarly journals, scientific associations, conferences, etc. Internet has integrated scientific research at two levels. The first level focuses on research dealing with an offline object whose observation is done online. For such research, Internet is used as a facultative option considered as a cheap and a rapid data collection tool. The second level focuses on researches examining an object closely associated with the use of Internet and its applications. In both cases, the adaptation of traditional methods of research to online context is needed. This adaptation is subject to critical review in the scientific world. This review focuses mainly on the nature of online communication which, supposedly, would not allow an interaction as spontaneous and as rich as a face to face situation.

In this paper, results of a review of the literature on online research and the specific conditions of their application are presented. The article also highlights the emergence of a new online research field, i.e. the virtual worlds. In the first part, we describe our methodological approach. Then, we present the results of our synthesis. Finally, we discuss some of the ethical issues involved in implementing these new research methods.

Specificities of online research environment

Several books and articles have addressed the complexity of adaptation of methodologies used in social and human research sciences to online environments (Jones, 1995; 1997; 1998; 1999; Mann and Stewart, 2000; Johns et al. 2004). This complexity stems mainly from the particularity of Internet as a medium. According to Markham (1998), Internet can be seen in different ways. Some users consider it as a tool or vehicle to transmit information from one place to another. Others consider it as a place of interaction between individuals. Finally, others conceptualize it as a way to express the self. Internet has created a new mode of human communication since the audience is less passive than in the case of watching television or listening radio. The audience has the right to scrutinize and participates in the informational content.

According to Liav (2004), for the researcher Internet presents certain characteristics that differentiate it from the other media: (1) it is a huge reservoir of information, (2) it is an innovation that has a real impact on social relations in terms of possibility of expression of emotions and strengthening ties in the absence of physical presence and, (3) contrary to face to face communication, Internet allows a certain anonymity about the real identity of users and consequently change the essence of the emotion, its concreteness and its mode of expression.

Internet can be considered as a new communication technology that favours certain attributes of human interaction but diminishes others. In the same vein, Mann and Stewart (2000) consider that, in an online context, interactions can be more spontaneous, more interactive and richer as they may be more distant given the absence of the "human" presence of the other. Despite this last limit, Mann and Stewart (2000) consider that, in some cases, this depersonalization may be appropriate, especially when the required level of social interaction is low. Therefore, according to the researches covered in this synthesis, online research is appropriate in some cases but not in others.

According to Liav (2004), online interactions often exist in text form and transform the act of writing. Although Internet presents several advantages for researchers, specialists in online research see the need to adapt traditional research methods to online environments (Baym, 1995; Correll, 1995; Jones 1995, 1997, 1998; Paccagnella, 1997; Markham, 1998; Chen and Hinton, 1999; Witmer et al. 1999; Hine, 2000; Miller and Slater 2000; O'Connor and Madge, 2001; Stewart and Williams, 2005). Hine (2005) considers that there is yet a considerable scepticism about the applicability of research methods to online contexts. In the following section, we present a summary of the principal work dealing with this adaptation.

Literature review

To trace the evolution of Internet research and its use as a research field, we proceeded in two steps. The first was a keyword search in the three major databases of academic research: ABI-Inform, ScienceDirect and EBSCO Host. The aim was to collect papers dealing with Internet as an object and, especially, as a research method. The same approach was used by Honglei Li (2004) to study the evolution of studies dealing with virtual communities. The purpose of this second step was to examine in a more concrete and precise way the various methods used by the researchers. To this end, a more detailed work on the content of the texts was conducted in order to sort out the results of the first step. To ensure completeness, an additional manual search was conducted to cover documents not referenced in the three databases, namely books, conference proceedings, etc...

Internet as an object and a research method

Table1 summarizes the results of the first step of the research and presents the evolution of Internet use as an object and as a research method. All three sources agree in showing that, since 2001, researchers of various scientific areas seem to use more often Internet as a research method.

Table1. Online research growth

 

The results of the second step deal rather with the content of the considered references. Specialists in online research rely on qualitative and/or quantitative approaches. They use semiotics, archives but also questionnaire surveys, etc. For our paper, we chose to limit the analysis to online qualitative research.

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) define online qualitative research as a multi-paradigmatic domain located at the intersection of human sciences, social sciences and physical sciences. Researchers in this area are quite cognizant of the multi-method approach and are engaged in a perspective that emphasizes the interpretative understanding of human experience. In the same vein, Denzin (2004) considers online qualitative research as eclectic and difficult to define. Multiple theoretical paradigms use different methods and strategies of online qualitative research as constructivism, cultural studies, feminism, Marxism, etc. Online qualitative research is used in several disciplines and with contrasted perspectives.

The results show that there are several types of online research. The first involves research whose purpose is not necessarily on Internet itself and whose authors use Internet as a data collection field. For this type of research, the use of the online environment is or should be motivated by the convenient, economic and confidential aspects of Internet. For this kind of research, Internet use is optional. For the second type of research, using Internet as a research field is quite mandatory. For this kind of work, the research object takes place in the cyberspace, like the study of virtual communities or the study of Internet use in various fields such as health, education, consumption, entertainment, etc. Hine (2005) considers it rare that researchers in the social and human fields can not find certain aspects of their research interests on Internet.

A third type of research emerged in the gathered texts: researches in metaverses or virtual worlds. It is a type of research specific to the study of residents of persistent virtual worlds like Second Life, Entropia Universe, ActiveWorlds, etc. We will devote the last section of this paper to this recent type of research. In the following section, we present in detail the main methods that are discussed in the examined literature.

Main methods of online qualitative research

The methods of online qualitative research frequently used in the studies we covered in this review are: focus groups, participant or non-participating observation and online interviews. In Table 2, we summarized the themes discussed about online qualitative research in the scholarly journals from 2001 to 2008. We note that this table presents a summary of the review we conducted. It covers major works but does not pretend to be exhaustive.

Table2. Principal online qualitative research methods

Focus group. Traditionally, the technique of focus group or group discussion gathers 5 to 10 participants in order to capture the elaboration of an opinion about a given topic. Krueger (1988) considers that there is no universal recipe to conduct a focus group. The online focus group is a method that has been identified among the main methods of online qualitative research. With Internet, the online focus group emerged as a solution to the difficulty of regrouping in the same physical space geographically distant participants. According to Stewart and Williams (2005), the first applications were made in the academic health domain (Robson, 1999; Murray, 1997). Unlike the offline focus group, the existence of Internet as a medium and the ability to scan data gave rise to the development of two types of online focus groups: synchronized and a-synchronized.

The synchronized focus group: to meet participants in real time in chat rooms or via instant messaging. In synchronized focus group, exchanges are more spontaneous and interactive. This method is more suitable when the topic of the discussion does not require much thought.

The a-synchronized focus group: to meet together participants in a deferred way via listservs (mailing lists) or using newsgroups. In an a-synchronized focus group, exchanges are longer and provide better protection of the identity of participants and researchers (Matthew and Stewart, 2005). Unlike the synchronized focus group, this method allows limiting the drawbacks of slow participants and is more appropriate when careful consideration is needed.

Several studies covered in this synthesis have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of online focus group method (Rezabek, 2000; Mann and Stewart, 2000; Williams and Robson, 2004; Stewart and Williams 2005). Like the traditional focus group technique, the online one can generate a large amount of data in a short time. This method is less costly since it allows easier access to geographically distant participants (Edmunds, 1999). In addition, the online focus group could ensure the anonymity of participants when the object of research required it. However, this method also has disadvantages. Participants in online focus groups must have access to the Internet. These methods are most appropriate when the research object is related to Internet. With electronic exchanges, there is no access to facial expressions and gestures of the participants. This reduces the wealth of information resulting from live interaction between participants. In the case of synchronized focus group online, potential problems of interference between the participants can emerge and thereby increase the difficulty of interpreting data. Finally, the anonymity, which is itself an advantage, could in some cases encourage some overruns, exaggerations or other acts that would be difficult to control by the moderator.

Ethnography. Traditionally, ethnography or participant observation is a research method used to generate an understanding of how others live. The researcher must engage in a relatively prolonged participation in a community or group (Mann and Stewart, 2000). Participant observation includes several approaches to generate data as direct observation, interviews, analysis of messages or documents, reflection, interpretation, etc. (Schwandt, 1997). The online observation, netnography, online ethnography, virtual ethnography, cyber-ethnography, etc. are expressions used in existing works to refer to the adaptation of the observation method to the online context. The majority of these works deal with online textual exchanges (Markham, 1998; Hine, 2000; Leander and McKim, 2003).

The online observation is an interpretative method developed specifically to study pure or derivative virtual communities (Kozinets, 1997). It is also an appropriate method for studying sensitive research topics (e.g. cosmetic surgery) and allows the researcher to get a thorough idea of opinions, motivations and concerns of the studied community members. Works identified here highlight the difficulties traditionally encountered by the researcher regarding the recruitment, the establishment of bonds with individuals and the disclosure of the motivations in the case of sensitive issues, hence the need for netnographic approach (Beckan and Langer, 2005). However, according to LeBesco (2004), ethnographers reject the idea that that traditional ethnography can occur when the researcher is not physically present with his subjects. In the same vein, Williams (2007) considers that anonymity raises some epistemological and methodological issues and complicates the application of the classic ethnography to online context.

Thus, apart from the desire of reducing the geographical distance and the question of delicate research objects, the majority of works covered in this synthesis was rather concerned with the disadvantages of online ethnography. Liav (2004) mentions the liquefaction and the malleability of virtual communities and sites of their interactions as a major difficulty in monitoring the members of the community observed. Anonymity is also a problem that has been widely cited by research specialists.

The difficulty may come from the possible change in the identity of subjects (Liav, 2004) and researchers (Williams, 2007). Thus, anonymity could sow doubt in the trust relationship between the researcher and his/her subjects. Finally, the absence of the physical body remains the major challenge of online ethnography. Firstly, the interactions can distort the textual model of communication; in addition, there is a loss of meaning and significance coming from the non-verbal exchanges of gestures and body. Liav (2004) considers that the data collected are incomplete and provide a limited picture of the real world.

Interviews. Traditionally, the interview is regarded as a largely qualitative approach where the researcher becomes itself an instrument of the research method (Chen and Hinton, 1999). It is a process in which meanings are created from the personal interaction between interviewer and interviewee. Often, the interview is used in areas where quantitative research can not capture the richness of the phenomenon. It allows flexibility in data collection but it is considered as the most expensive technique. The method of online interview was developed to reduce costs associated with geographic distance of the interviewees. As in the case of online focus groups, O'Connor and Madge (2001) consider that there are two types of online interviews: the synchronized interview by instant messaging (Chen and Hinton, 1999) and a-synchronized interview by e-mail (Bennett, 1998).

The method of online interview has the advantage to be more structured than the classic interview since it leaves the interviewee the time required to respond, and allows an instant data backup. This is a method that reduces costs in terms of time, travel costs and data transcription (O'Connor and Madge, 2001). It also provides access to distant participants or to those whose availability is reduced. Nevertheless, it remains a method limited to subjects with Internet connexion and some expertise in messaging software. In addition, the loss of paralinguistic attributes can introduce a bias as to the completeness of the collected data (Chen and Hinton, 1999).

We note that for the three methods, the main benefit that researchers attach to their online application is related to the ability to reach physically distant subjects and protect their identity in case of sensitive issues. Paradoxically, these same benefits present epistemological and methodological problems related to anonymity and lack of physical researcher and subjects. To provide solutions to these problems and mitigate the disadvantages of anonymity and lack of physical presence, some specialists in online research has considered a new generation of online methodology: online research in virtual worlds (Stewart and Williams 2005, Williams 2007). In what follows, we present an overview of the virtual worlds and of the characteristics of the research one could perform there.

Virtual worlds as an emerging field research

Virtual worlds

In the 90s, with the advent of Internet, new forms of computer role-playing games have emerged. The first generation was MUDs (Multi-User Domains) where distant players connected to text messaging in which they play characters. These applications allowed the meeting of a maximum of about two hundred players simultaneously. With the enlargement of the bandwidth, the improving of the interface of computers but also with the development of software programming and simulation of phenomena in real time, virtual worlds or metaverses or synthetic worlds have emerged.

Unlike their precursors, virtual worlds allow the meeting of tens of thousands of residents simultaneously. They are persistent in that they function 24 hours on 24. Editors provide technical teams that can execute real-time changes made by residents. These worlds are not limited in time: they continue to evolve even when residents are disconnected. A virtual world is defined by a universe and characters (avatars) that act individually or in groups to change the world according to practices, standards and established customs. Among these virtual worlds, the most notorious are probably Second Life, Entropia, ActiveWorlds and World of Warcraft.

Qualitative research in virtual worlds

In the existing body of researches, two qualitative methods have been considered in virtual worlds: focus groups and ethnography. Both the researcher and the subjects act through an avatar as an identity and a graphic appearance in the metaverse. In virtual worlds, avatars move in a 3D graphical environment and can speak and act through their appearance itself, speech, texts (chats and instant messages) and gestures.

The advantages that have been identified about research methods in virtual worlds are: (1) a combination of text and graphics that generates a different dynamic to conduct research; (2) a pseudo-graphic presence that enhances interactivity between subjects and between subjects and the researcher thus reducing the disadvantages of the physical absence in online research and the loss of paralinguistic elements as gesture expressions, body and face; (3) an anonymity relatively reduced because the chosen avatar can convey some aspects of a real or an imagined identity of the subject. However, Williams (2007) also noted some limitations of these methods:

• they reduce but not eliminate all the disadvantages of the online research;

• they are made within a framework of entertainment, which can distract the participants and skew the results;

• they are based on a virtual identity chosen by the subjects themselves and may correspond to fantasized, ideal, even anti-ideal identities.

In addition, it remains that these methods can be done only when subjects have not only Internet connexion but also expertise and powerful equipment and graphic cards to connect properly to these virtual worlds.

Ethical issues

Whether online or specifically in virtual worlds, online qualitative research methods pose some ethical questions. Research specialists believe that the adaptation of traditional research methods to online context requires a review and a refocusing of codes of ethics. To do this, we must consider both the research code of conduct but also the code of conduct related to behaviour on Internet in general. Particular attention should be paid to the consideration of private versus public aspects of Internet as a medium (Langer and Beckan, 2005).

From an ethical standpoint, Kitchin (2007) classified online research in two categories: (1) research based on the net itself classified into two categories (intrusive and non-intrusive research) and (2) online research. According to him, only intrusive research and online research require ethics review.

The cost, the efficiency and the ease afforded by the online context characteristics are attractive, but ethical considerations can diminish the enthusiasm of researchers for these innovative methods (Stewart and Williams 2005; Hervet et al. 2009). Indeed, qualitative research is based on the trust relationship between the researcher and the subjects about the protection of privacy and disclosure. The physical absence and the anonymity of the subjects and the researcher can contribute to breaking this trust. At the same time, unlike in offline context, anonymity can also help to meet these ethical considerations as there is no obligation to disclose the true identity of the subjects. Thus, given the malleability of Internet, Kozinets (1997) recommends more flexibility in ethical restrictions which the researcher must comply to conduct online qualitative research.

Referring more specifically to the Second Life metaverse, Costello (aka Rivka Rau in SL, 2008), who has a long research experience, is working at the Avatar Identity Research Center and has 7 years of service on a US Internal Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, suggested the following five ethical rules :

1. Respect the SL culture of your interviewee: just as people have a culture in real life (RL) that you would take into account in interviewing, they have a SL culture too. Obviously, don't make disparaging comments about "bestiality" with furries, or conformity with Barbie and Ken avs, or bdsm with Goreans, or cuteness with tinies, or gender normativity with shemales and herms. . . Better yet, inform yourself of the iterviewees' SL cultures beforehand by reading their profiles and noting their group affiliations, and speak of their cultures in affirming terms.

2. Resepct the character of your interviewees: unless a resident of SL has indicated in profile that hir av's demographics differ from hir RL ones, do not challenge them. This holds especially true for gender. If you intend to ask for RL demographic information, this is considered a breach of SL trust by some residents, so make it clear in the consent process that you will be doing so, and that anyone uncomfortable with this should not participate. And if you do find out that the Japanese male ronin you are interviewing in SL is a caucasian female in RL, do not interact with him as if he is "really" a white woman.

3. Respect the interaction style of your interviewees: Just as you would speak in the language of your RL interviewee, do so here. Do NOT ask someone to speak "normal" english if "dey likes ta type loik dis," or use texting contractions. Don't ask someone to use voice who does not have it enabled. Don't request that somebody turn off their animations overrider (AO) so you can see their typing animation. Any of these disrespects the persona of your interviewee.

4. Be realistic about time: an interviewee who types slowly may take a long time to do an interview. Fast typers rival the pace of speech, but slow typists must be informed ahead of time of how long the interview might realistically take.

5. Get full informed consent, SL-style. Obviously, people in SL deserve the same protection against secret data-gathering, potential for disclosure, emotional distress, deceit, etc. etc. that they do in RL. Get full informed consent. However, some residents do NOT want the barrier between SL and RL to be broken, which disclosure of RL names and institutions will do. I suggest a two-tiered consent process. Give interviewees a consent notecard that lists your SL name and institutional nation only, but that includes nested within it a way to get the RL information and ethical review board contacts.

Conclusion

This article describes the main methods of online qualitative research. The review of publications in this field has shown that there is need to adapt traditional research methods to the online context. This need arises mainly from specificities characterizing the online context, particularly in regard to the nature of human interaction within this medium. On the other side, and despite the scepticism of some researchers about the applicability of research methods to online settings, Internet seems to offer some advantages that led other researchers to use the online environment as a research field.

The review of publications, which was focused on online qualitative research, shows that the emphasis is placed on three methods: ethnography, focus groups and interviews. The main advantages that researchers attach to the application of these online methods are related to the ability to reach physically distant subjects and to protect their identity in case of sensitive issues. However, these advantages are problems relating to anonymity and lack of physical researcher and subjects. To provide solutions to these problems and mitigate the disadvantages of anonymity and lack of physical presence, some specialists in online research consider a new generation of online research methods, those which can be used in virtual worlds.

The online qualitative research methods also raise some ethical issues. The research experts believe that adaptation of traditional research methods to online context requires a review and a refocusing of codes of research ethics. Given the opportunity of Internet as a field and as a research tool to advance scientific research, it becomes imperative that research specialists look to ethical issues in order to define codes that facilitate the researchers work while protecting subjects. Virtual worlds could provide a fertile ground for achieving such a compromise.

Bibliografía/Referencias

•  Androutsopoulos, J., 2006, “Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites”, en Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol.10, no.4, pp.520-547.

• Aviv, Sh., 2004, “Flow experiences and image making: An online chat-room ethnography”, en Psychology & Marketing, Vol.21, no.10, p.855.

• Baym, N., 1995, “The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication”, en Jones S. (ed), CyberSociety, Newbury Parck, CA, pp. 38-63.

• Beaulieu, Anne, 2004, “Mediating ethnography: objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet”, en Social Epistemology, Vol.18, no.2-3, pp.139-163.

• Bennett, C., 1998, “Men Online: Discussing Lived Experiences on the Internet”, Unpublished thesis, James Cook University, North Queensland, Australia.

• Bolding, D., Hart G., Sherr G., and Elford, J., 2004, “Reflecting on the experience of interviewing online: perspectives from the Internet and HIV study in London”, IDS Care, Vol.16, no pp.944-952.

• Bowker, N., and Tuffin, K., 2004, “Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities”, Social Science Computer Review, vol.22, no.2, pp.228-241.

• Browne, E., 2003, “Conversations in Cyberspace: a study of online learning”, Open Learning, Vol.18, no.3, pp.245-259.

• Cameron, K., Salazar, L., Bernhardt, J., Burgess-Whitman, N., Wingood, G., and DiClemente, R., 2005, “Adolescents' experience with sex on the web: results from online focus groups. Journal of Adolescence, 28(4), 535-540.

• Carolyn Folkman, Curasi, 2001, “A critical exploration of face-to-face interviewing vs. computer-mediated interviewing”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol.43, no.4, p.361.

• Case, P., and Piñeiro, E., 2006, “Aesthetics, performativity and resistance in the narratives of a computer programming community”, Human Relations, Vol.59, no.6, p.753.

• Casey, S., 2001, “Designing and conducting virtual focus groups”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol.4, no.3, p.130.

• Catterall, M., and Maclaran, P., 2002, “Researching consumers in virtual worlds: A cyberspace odyssey”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol.1, no.3, p.228.

• Chen, P., and Hinton, S., 1999, “Realtime interviewing using the world wide web”, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 4, pp.1-26.

• Chien, Ch., 2001, “Internet heavy use and addiction among Taiwanese college students: An online interview study”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol.4, no.5, pp.573-585.

• Correll, Sh., 1995, “The ethnography of an electronic bar, The Lesbian Café”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol.24, no.3, pp.270-298.

• Costello, C.Y., 2008, “Ethical rules for conducting research in Second Life”, Avatar Identity Research Center, Department od Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, courriel personnel du 22 novembre.

• De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., and Van Keer, H., 2006, “Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review”, Computers & Education, Vol.46, no.1, pp.6-28.

• Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y., 2000, Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. en Denzin, N., &, Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, pp.1-28.

• Dezin, N., 2004, “Online and Interpretive Social Research”, en Johns et al. (Eds) Online Social Research, Methods, Issues and Ethics.

• Dhiraj, M., 2008, “Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for Social research”, Sociology: the Journal of the British Sociological Association, Vol.42, no.5, p.837.

• Dickerson, S., 2005, “Technology-patient interactions: Internet use for gaining a healthy context for living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator”, Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, Vol.34, no.3, pp.157-168.

• Donna, J., and Fraser, J., 2005, “Online focus groups”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol.47, no.2, p.131.

• Donovan, C., Hodgson, B., Scanlon, E., and Whitelegg, E., 2005, “Women in higher education: Issues and challenges for part-time scientists”, Women's Studies International Forum, Vol.28, no.2-3, pp.247-258.

• Edmunds, H., 1999, The focus group research handbook. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books/Contemporary Publishing.

• Fullick, P., 2006, “Synchronous web-based communication using text as a means of enhancing discussion among school students”, Campus - Wide Information Systems, Vol.23, no.3, p.159.

• Gajjala, R., 2002, “An interrupted postcolonial/feminist cyberethnography: Complicity and resistance in the "Cyberfield"”, Feminist Media Studies, Vol.2, no.2, pp.177-193.

• Gaston, S., and Zweerink, A., 2004, “Ethnography online: Natives practicing and inscribing community”, Qualitative Research, Vol.4, no.2, pp.179-200.

• Godes, D., and Mayzlin, D., 2004, “Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication”, Marketing Science, Vol.23, no.5, p.545.

• Gruber, S., Szmigin I., Reppel, A., and Voss, R., 2008, “Designing and conducting online interviews to investigate interesting consumer phenomena”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol.11, no.3, p.256.

• Gwen, I., and Jerry, W., 2006, “Worth a thousand words”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.46, no.3, p.274.

• Hemetsberger, A., 2004, “Creative cyborgs: How consumers use the Internet for self-realization”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.32, p.53.

• Hervet, G., Ellafi K., and Rigaux-Bricmont B., “Conducting research invirtual worlds: ethical and methodological reflections” in Metaverses and 3D Environments, Analog Crisis, Digital Future, IV Congress of CyberSociety 2009.

• Hine, C., 2000, Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.

• Hine, C., 2005, Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Berg.

• Honglei, L., 2004, “Virtual community studies: A Literature review, synthesis and research agenda”, AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, Paper 324.

• Johns, M., Chen, S., and Hall, G., 2004, Online Social Research: Methods, Issues & Ethics, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

• Jones, S., 1995, Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Jones, S., 1997, Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety, London: Sage.

• Jones, S., 1998, Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer Mediated Communication and Community, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Jones, S., 1999, Doing Internet Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Kitchins, H., 2007, Research ethics and the Internet, negociating Canada’s tri-council policy statement, Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

• Kozinets, R., 1997, “I want to believe: A netnography of the X-Philes’ subculture of consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.24, pp.470-475.

• Kozinets, R., 1997, “On netnography: Initial reflections on consumer research investigations of cyberculture”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.25, pp.366-371.

• Kozinets, R., 2002, “The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.39, no.1, p.61.

• Kozinets, R., 2006, “Click to Connect: Netnography and tribal, advertising”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.46, no.3, p.279.

• Krueger, R., 1988, Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, Newbury Park: Sage.

• Langer, R., and Beckan, S., 2005, “Sensitive research topics: Netnography revisited”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.8, no.2, pp.189-203.

• Leander, K., and McKim, K., 2003, “Tracing the everyday 'Sitings' of Adolescents on the Internet: a strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces”, Education, Communication & Information, Vol.3, no.2, p.211.

• LeBesco, K., 2004, “Managing visibility, intimacy, and focus in online critical ethnography”, en Johns et al. (Eds) Online Social Research, Methods, Issues and Ethics.

• Lemai, N., Luba, T., Konrad, P., and Corbitt, B., 2006, “Power relations in virtual communities: An ethnographic study”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol.6, no.1, p.21.

• Liav, S., 2004, “Internet ethnography: Online and offline”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol.3, no.2, pp.1-14.

• Luck, E., 2003, “How consumers search for information online: A focus group investigation”, American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, Vol.14, p.29.

• Mann, C., and Stewart, F., 2000, Internet Communications and Qualitative Research, London: Sage.

• Markham, A., 1998, Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space, Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.

• Miller, D., and Slater, D., 2000, The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach, Oxford: Berg.

• Mühlenfeld, H., 2005, “Differences between `talking about' and `admitting' sensitive behaviour in anonymous and non-anonymous web-based interviews”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.21, no.6, pp.993-1003.

• Murray, P., 1997, “Using virtual focus groups in qualitative health research”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol.7, no.4, pp.542-549.

• Nash, K., and Tyreman, S., 2005, “An account of the development of the conceptual basis of osteopathy course at the British School of Osteopathy”, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, Vol.8, no.1, pp.29-37.

• O’Connor, H., and Madge, C., 2001, “Cyber-mothers: Online synchronous interviewing using conferencing software”, Sociological Research Online, Vol.5, no.4, pp.1-27.

• O’Connor, H., and Madge, C., 2003, “Focus groups in cyberspace: Using the Internet for qualitative research”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol.6, no.2, p.33.

• Orvis, K., Wisher, R., Bonk, C., and Olson, T., 2002, “Communication patterns during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.18, no.6, pp.783-795.

• Paccagnella, L., 1997, “Getting the seat of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol.3, no.1, pp.267–88.

• Parker, D., and Song, M., 2006, “New ethnicities online: reflexive racialisation and the internet”, Sociological Review, Vol.54, no.3, pp.575-594.

• Puri, A., 2007, “The Web of insights: The art and practice of webnography”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol.49, no.3, p.387.

• Reppel, A., Szmigin, I., and Gruber, Th., 2006, “The iPod phenomenon: identifying a market leader's secrets through qualitative marketing research”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.15, no.4, p.239.

• Rezabek, R., 2000, “Online focus groups: Electronic discussions for research”, Qualitative Social Research, Vol.1, no.1, pp.1-19.

• Robson, K., 1999, Employment experiences of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease sufferers, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales Cardiff.

• Schwandt, T., 1997, Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of Terms, London: Sage.

• Stewart, F., Eckermann, E., and Zhou, K., 1998, “Using the Internet in qualitative public heath research: A comparison of chinese and australian young women’s perceptions of tobacco use”, Internet Journal of Health Promotion.

• Stewart, K., and Williams, M., 2005, “Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research”, Qualitative Research, Vol.5, no.4, pp.395–416.

• Stieger, S., and Göritz, A., 2006, “Using instant messaging for Internet-based interviews”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol.9, no.5, pp.552-559.

• Weisgerber, C., 2004, “Turning to the Internet for help on sensitive medical problems”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol.7, no.4, pp.554-574.

• Williams, M., and Robson, K., 2004, “Reeingineering focus group methodology for the online environment”, en Johns et al. (Eds) Online Social Research, Methods, Issues and Ethics.

• Williams, M., 2007, “Avatar watching: Participant observation in graphical online environments”, Qualitative Research, Vol.7, no.5, pp.5-24.

• Witmer, D., Colman, R., and Katzman, S., 1999, “From paper-and-Pencil to Screen-and-Keyboard”, en S. Jones (ed.) Doing Internet Research, London: Sage, pp.145–61.

• Wolfinbarger, M., and Gilly, M., 2003, “ETailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.79, no.3, p.183.

• Wood, R., Griffiths, M., and Eatough, V., 2004, “Online data collection from video game players: methodological issues, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol.7, no.5, pp. 511-518.

 

Recoñecemento – SenObraDerivada (CC-by-nd 3.0 ou calquera outra posterior)