Studying online interpersonal communication using online forums: epistemological, ethical, and methodological perspectives

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE
Author/s Davide Cino
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/127 Language English
Pages 19 P. 62-80 File size 210 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2022-127004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page .

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

  1. J.Agee (2009), «Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process», International Jour- nal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 4, pp. 431-47, DOI: 10.1080/09518390902736512
  2. M. Birks, Y. Chapman, K. Francis (2008), «Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and pro- cesses», Journal of Research in Nursing, 13, 1, pp. 68-75,
  3. A. Blum-Ross, S. Livingstone (2017), «Sharenting», parent blogging, and the boundaries of the dig- ital self», Popular Communication, 15, 2, pp. 110-25, DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
  4. C.S. Bond, O.H. Ahmed, M. Hind, B. Thomas, J. Hewitt-Taylor (2013), «The conceptual and practical ethical dilemmas of using health discussion board posts as research data», Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, 6, e112,
  5. E. Brady, S. Guerin (2010), «“Not the romantic, all happy, coochy coo experience”: a qualitative analysis of interactions on an Irish parenting web site», Family Relations, 59, 1, pp. 14-27,
  6. A. Bruns, S. Stieglitz (2013), «Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities», International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, 2, pp. 91-108, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2012.756095
  7. J.L. Campbell, C. Quincy, J. Osserman, O.K. Pedersen (2013), «Coding In-depth semistruc- tured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement», Socio- logical Methods and Research, 42, 3, pp. 294-320, DOI: 10.1177/0049124113500475
  8. L. Caronia (1997), Costruire la conoscenza. Interazione e interpretazione nella ricerca in cam- po educativo, Firenze, La Nuova Italia.
  9. L. Caronia (2011), Fenomenologia dell’educazione: intenzionalità, cultura e conoscenza in pedagogia, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  10. S.M. Carraher (2014), «Consumer behavior, online communities, collaboration, IFRS, and Tung», Journal of Technology Management in China, -- https://www.emerald.com/insight/ content/doi/10.1108/JTMC-01-2014-0002/full/html.
  11. C. Chalklen, H. Anderson (2017), «Mothering on Facebook: exploring the privacy/openness paradox», Social Media + Society, 3, 2, pp. 1-10,
  12. J. Cohen (1960), «A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales», Educational and Psycholog- ical Measurement, 20, 1, pp. 37-46,
  13. M. Consalvo, C. Ess (eds.) (2011), The Handbook of Internet Studies, Hoboken, John Wiley and Sons, vol. 14.
  14. F. Cornish, A. Gillespie, T. Zittoun (2013), Collaborative Analysis of Qualitative Data, in U.
  15. Flick (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, London, Sage.
  16. J.W. Creswell (2014), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach- es, Los Angeles, Sage, 4th ed.
  17. R. Das (2017), «Speaking about Birth: Visible and Silenced Narratives in Online Discussions of Childbirth», Social Media + Society, 3, 4, pp. 1-11,
  18. L.K. Denton, C.E. Creeley, B. Stavola, K. Hall, B.D. Foltz (2020), «An analysis of online preg- nancy message boards: Mother-to-mother advice on medication use», Women and Birth, 33, 1, pp. 48-58,
  19. A. Duranti (1997), Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  20. H. Eriksson, M. Salzmann-Erikson (2013), «Supporting a caring fatherhood in cyberspace. An analysis of communication about caring within an online forum for fathers», Scandavian Journal of Caring Science, 27, pp. 63-9,
  21. C. Ess, AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002), Ethical decision-making and internet research: recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee, http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf,
  22. R.J. Fisher, J.E. Katz (2000), «Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values», Psychology and Marketing. Special Issue: Social Desirability Bias, 17, 2, pp. 105-20.
  23. A.S. Franzke, A. Bechmann, M. Zimmer, C. Ess, Association of Internet Researchers (2020), Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0, -- https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
  24. H. Gadamer (1975), «Hermeneutics and social science», Philosophy Social Criticism, 2, 4, pp. 307-16.
  25. D.M. Gleeson, A. Craswell, C.M. Jones (2019), «Women’s use of social networking sites related to childbearing: An integrative review», Women and Birth, 32, 4, pp. 294-302,
  26. C. Hewson (2014), Qualitative approaches in Internet-mediated research: Opportunities, is- sues, possibilities, in P. Leavy (ed.), The Oxford Handbook Of Qualitative Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  27. P. Holtz, N. Kronberger, W. Wagner (2012), «Analyzing Internet forums a practical guide», Journal of Media Psychology, 24, 2, pp. 55-66,
  28. J.M. Hudson, A. Bruckman (2004), «“Go away”: participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research», The Information Society, 20, 2, pp. 127-39, DOI: 10.1080/01972240490423030
  29. E.O. Im, W. Chee (2012), «Practical guidelines for qualitative research using online forums», Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN, 30, 11, pp. 1-12,
  30. J. Jang, J. Dworkin (2012), «Babycenter.com: New parent behavior in an online community», The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 17, 2, -- https://projects.ncsu.edu/ffci/publica- tions/2012/v17-n2-2012-summer-fall/jang-dworkin.php.
  31. R. Janghorban, R.L. Roudsari, A. Taghipour (2014), «Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research», International Journal of Qualita- tive Studies on Health and Well-being, 9, 1, p. 24152,
  32. S. Jaworska (2018), «“Bad” mums tell the “untellable”: Narrative practices and agency in online stories about postnatal depression on Mumsnet», Discourse, Context and Media, 25, pp. 25-33,
  33. R. Johns, R. English (2014), «Mothers influencing mothers: the use of virtual discussion boards and their influence on consumption», International Journal of Web Based Communities, 10, 3, pp. 319-38.
  34. A. Jowett (2015), «A case for using online discussion forums in critical psychological research», Qualitative Researchin Psychology, 12, 3, pp. 287-97, DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2015.1008906
  35. I. Kant (1994), Ethical philosophy: the complete texts of Grounding for the metaphysics of mor- als, and Metaphysical principles of virtue, Part II of The metaphysics of morals, with On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing.
  36. S.A. King (1996), «Researching Internet communities: proposed ethical guidelines for the re- porting of results», Information Society, 12, pp. 119-27, DOI: 10.1080/713856145
  37. N. Kiyimba, J.N. Lester, M. O’Reilly (2019), Understanding naturally occurring data, in J.N. Lester, M. O’Reilly, N. Kiyimba (eds.), Using Naturally Occurring Data in Qualitative Health Research, New York, Springer.
  38. R.V. Kozinets (2002), «The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities», Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, pp. 61-72,
  39. H. Kwak, J. Blackburn (2014), «Linguistic analysis of toxic behavior in an online video game», International Conference on Social Informatics, Cham, Springer.
  40. M. Landqvist (2016), «Sense and sensibility. Online forums as epistemic arenas», Discourse, Context and Media, 13, pp. 98-105,
  41. T. Leaver (2015), Born digital? Presence, privacy, and intimate surveillance, in J. Hartley, W. Qu (eds.), Re-Orientation: translingual transcultural transmedia. studies in narrative, language, identity, and knowledge, Shangai, Fudan University Press.
  42. T. Leaver (2020), Balancing Privacy: Sharenting, Intimate Surveillance and the Right to be for- gotten, in L. Green, D. Holloway, K. Stevenson, T. Leaver, L. Haddon (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Children and Digital Media, London, Routledge, in press.
  43. J.N. Lester, T. Muskett, M. O’Reilly (2017), Naturally Occurring Data Versus Research- er-Generated Data, in M. O’Reilly, J.N. Lester, T. Muskett (eds.), A Practical Guide to Social Interaction Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, London, Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. L. Lindholm (2017), «“So now I’m panic attack free!”. Response stories in a peer-topeer online advice forum on pregnancy and parenting», Linguistik Online, 87, 8, pp. 25-41,
  45. S. Livingstone, A. Blum-Ross, J. Pavlick, K. Ólafsson (2018), In the digital home, how do parents support their children and who supports them? Parenting for a Digital Future: Survey Report 1, Report of the LSE Department of Media and Communications, London, -- http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/preparing- for-a-digital-future.
  46. D. Lupton, S. Pedersen, G.M. Thomas (2016), «Parenting and digital media: from the early web to contemporary digital society», Sociology Compass, 10, 8, pp. 730-43,
  47. K.M. MacQueen, E. McLellan, K. Kay, B. Milstein (1998), «Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis», Cam Journal, 10, 2, pp. 31-6,
  48. D. Maloney-Krichmar, J. Preece (2005), «A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community», ACM Transactions on Comput- er-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 12, 2, pp. 201-32, DOI: 10.1145/1067860.1067864
  49. A. Markham, E. Buchanan (2012), Ethical decision-making and Internet research (version 2.0): Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee, aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
  50. G.T. Marx (1998), «Ethics for the new surveillance», The Information Society, 14, 3, pp. 171-85, DOI: 10.1080/019722498128809
  51. G. Mascheroni, C. Ponte, A. Jorge (eds.) (2018), Digital Parenting. The challenges for Families in the Digital Age, Gothenburg, Nordicom, The Clearinghouse Yearbook.
  52. C.R. Massat, C. McKay, H. Moses (2009), «Monkeying Around: Use of Survey Monkey as a Tool for School Social Work», School Social Work Journal (Follmer Group), 33, 2, pp. 44-56.
  53. M.B. Miles, A.M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2nd ed.
  54. J.S. Mill (1998), Utilitarianism, in R. Crisp (ed.), Utilitarianism, New York, Oxford University Press.
  55. T. Palys (2008), Purposive sampling, in L.M. Given (ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, Los Angeles, Sage.
  56. G. Paolacci, J. Chandler, P.G. Ipeirotis (2010), «Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk», Judgment and secision making, 5, 5, pp. 411-9.
  57. A. Papargyris, A. Poulymenakou (2005), «Learning to fly in persistent digital worlds: The case of massively multiplayer online role playing games», ACM Siggroup Bulletin, 25, 1, pp. 41-9.
  58. S. Pedersen, D. Lupton (2018), «“What are you feeling right now?”. Communities of maternal feeling on Mumsnet», Emotion, Space and Society, 26, pp. 57-63,
  59. J. Saldaña (2009), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, London, Sage.
  60. A. Scherpenzeel, V. Toepoel (2012), «Recruiting a probability sample for an online panel: Ef- fects of contact mode, incentives, and information», Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 3, pp. 470-90.
  61. A. Schütz (1944), «The stranger: An essay in social psychology», American Journal of Sociol- ogy, 49, 6, pp. 499-507, DOI: 10.1086/219472
  62. D. Silverman (2011), What is naturally occurring data? [streaming video], retrieved from Sage Research Methods, -- https://methods.sagepub.com/video/what-is-naturally-occurring-data.
  63. R.M. Smedley, N.S. Coulson (2021), «Apractical guide to analysing online support forums. Qual- itative Research in Psychology», 18, 1, pp. 76-103, DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2018.1475532
  64. H. Smith, A. Bulbul, C.J. Jones (2017), «Can online discussion sites generate quality data for research purposes?», Frontiers in Public Health, 5, p. 156,
  65. D.W. Stewart, P. Shamdasani (2017), «Online focus groups», Journal of Advertising, 46, 1, pp. 48-60, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288
  66. L. Sugiura, R. Wiles, C. Pope (2017), «Ethical challenges in online research: public/private perceptions», Research Ethics, 13, 3-4, pp. 184-99,
  67. A. Traianou (2014), The centrality of ethics in qualitative research, in P. Leavy (ed.), The Ox- ford handbook of qualitative research, New York, Oxford University Press.
  68. M. Vaismoradi, H. Turunen, T. Bondas (2013), «Content analysis and thematic analysis: Impli- cations for conducting a qualitative descriptive study», Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 3, pp. 398-405,
  69. A.J. Viera, J.M. Garrett (2005), «Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic», Family Medicine, 37, 5, pp. 360-3.
  70. M.D. White, E.E. Marsh (2006), «Content analysis: A flexible methodology», Library Trends, 55, 1, pp. 22-45,
  71. N. Whiteman (2012), Undoing ethics: rethinking practice in online research, Boston, Springer.
  72. R. Yamada, K.M. Rasmussen, J.P. Felice (2016), «Mothers’ use of social media to inform their practices for pumping and providing pumped human milk to their infants», Children, 3, 4, p. 22,

Davide Cino, Studying online interpersonal communication using online forums: epistemological, ethical, and methodological perspectives in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 127/2022, pp 62-80, DOI: 10.3280/SR2022-127004