Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:55:41.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Virtual Data Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2017

Edited by
Virginia Braun ,
Victoria Clarke  and
Debra Gray
Virginia Braun
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Victoria Clarke
Affiliation:
University of the West of England, Bristol
Debra Gray
Affiliation:
University of Winchester
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Collecting Qualitative Data
A Practical Guide to Textual, Media and Virtual Techniques
 , pp. 189 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Resources: Online

The Research Ethics Guidebook is a resource for social science researchers; for students, it provides help with writing a research proposal or ethics application and dealing with ethical dilemmas: www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk

The British Psychological Society provides ethical guidance for Internet-mediated research: www.bps.org.uk/&/inf206-guidelines-for-Internet-mediated-research.pdf

Further Resources: Readings

For a comparison of face-to-face, telephone and email interviews, see McCoyd, J. L. M. and Kerson, T. S. (2006). Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), 389–406.Google Scholar
For a useful comparison of face-to-face and email interviews by focusing on issues relating to time, space and technology, see Bampton, R. and Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), article 9. Retrieved from: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs020295Google Scholar
For a useful discussion of various practical benefits and ethical issues around email interviews for researchers, as well as participants – especially those with disabilities – see Bowker, N. and Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 228–241.Google Scholar
For a paper that explores email interviews amongst other online research methods, and draws on three research projects over ten years to suggest online, textual interactive interviews are worthy of research consideration, see Crichton, S. and Kinash, S. (2003). Virtual ethnography: Interactive interviewing online as method. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2), Spring/Printemps, www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/40/37Google Scholar
For a discussion of inclusivity in email interviews, showing how email interviews can be used to facilitate research participation by people with impaired verbal communication, see Ison, N. (2009). Having their say: Email interviews for research data collection with people who have verbal communication impairment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
For a discussion of some challenges of email interviewing, see James, N. (2007). The use of email interviewing as a qualitative method of inquiry in educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 963–97.Google Scholar

References

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The internet in everyday life. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bampton, R. and Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), article 9. Retrieved from: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs020295Google Scholar
Bowker, N. and Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 228–241.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
British Psychological Society (2013). Ethics guidelines for Internet-mediated research. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches and voices. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn, pp. 651–679). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Crichton, S. and Kinash, S. (2003). Virtual ethnography: Interactive interviewing online as method. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2). Retrieved from: www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/40/37Google Scholar
Davis, M., Bolding, G., Hart, G., Sherr, L. and Elford, J. (2004). Reflecting on the experience of interviewing online: Perspectives from the Internet and HIV study in London. Aids Care, 16(8), 944–952.Google Scholar
Gaiser, T. J. and Schreiner, A. E. (2009). A guide to conducting online research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gibson, L. (2010a). Popular music and the life course: Cultural commitment, lifestyles and identities (Unpublished PhD thesis). Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Gibson, L. (2010b). Using email interviews to research popular music and the life course. ‘Realties’ toolkit, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM).Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. J. and Bowers, B. J. (2006). Internet recruitment and e-mail interviews in qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 821–835.Google Scholar
Hine, C. (ed.) (2005). Virtual methods issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Hodgson, S. (2004). Cutting through the silence: A sociological construction of self-injury. Sociological Inquiry, 74(2), 162–179.Google Scholar
Hooley, T., Marriott, J. and Wellens, J. (2012). What is online research? Using the Internet for social science research. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hunt, N. and McHale, H. (2007). A practical guide to the email interview. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1415–1421.Google Scholar
Ison, N. (2009). Having their say: Email interviews for research data collection with people who have verbal communication impairment. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
James, N. (2007). The use of email interviewing as a qualitative method of inquiry in educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 963–976.Google Scholar
James, N. and Busher, H. (2007). Ethical Issues in online educational research: Protecting privacy, establishing authenticity in email interviewing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(1), 101–113.Google Scholar
Madge, C. and O’Connor, H. (2002). On-line with e-mums: Exploring the Internet as a medium for research. Area, 34(1), 92–102.Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McCoyd, J. L. M. and Kerson, T. S. (2006). Conducting intensive interviews using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), 389–406.Google Scholar
Meho, L. I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1284–1295.Google Scholar
Meho, L. I. and Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modelling the information-seeking behaviour of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570–587.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics (2013). Internet access – Households and individuals, 2013.Google Scholar
Olivero, N. and Lunt, P. (2004). Privacy versus willingness to disclose in e-commerce exchanges: The effect of risk awareness on the relative role of trust and control. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(2), 243–262.Google Scholar
Poland, B. D. (2002). Transcription quality. In Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 629–649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ratislavová, K. and Ratislav, J. (2014). Asynchronous email interview as a qualitative research method in the humanities. Human Affairs, 24(14), 452–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication, impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.Google Scholar
Wicksteed, A. (2000). Manifestations of chaos and control in the life experiences of individuals with eating disorders: Explorations through qualitative email discourse. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 475–480.Google Scholar

Further Resources: Online

For an introduction to what IM is, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging

Further Resources: Readings

To read more about the example studies involving couple interviews, see

For further guidance on preparing for synchronous online interviews, see Chapter 6: Preparing for a live online interview, in: Salmons, J. (2010). Online interviews in real time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
For useful guidance on creating and sustaining meaningful relationships with participants in online interviews, see Chapter 2: Engaging with research participants online in James, N. and Busher, H. (2009). Online interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2008). ‘This is not a lesbian wedding’: Examining same-sex marriage and bisexual-lesbian couples. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 237–260.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2011). Examining communication about marriage amendments: Same-sex couples and their extended social networks. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 264–281.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2013). Same-sex marriage and privacy management: Examining couples’ communication with family members. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 60–75.Google Scholar

References

Baxter, L. A. and Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Bowker, N. I. and Tuffin, K. (2007). Understanding positive subjectivities made possible online for disabled people. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 63–71.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Chou, C. (2001). Internet heavy use and addiction among Taiwanese college students: An online interview study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(5), 573–585.Google Scholar
Davis, M., Bolding, G., Hart, G., Sherr, L. and Elford, J. (2004). Reflecting on the experience of interviewing online: Perspectives from the Internet and HIV study in London. AIDS Care, 16(8), 944–952.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. (2003). The cinematic society and the reflective interview. In Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 141–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
van Eeden-Moorefield, B. V., Proulx, C. M. and Pasley, K. (2008). A comparison of Internet and face-to-face (FTF) qualitative methods in studying the relationships of gay men. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(2), 181–204.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.) (2001). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hinchcliffe, V. and Gavin, H. (2009). Social and virtual networks: Evaluating synchronous online interviewing using instant messenger. The Qualitative Report, 14(2), 318–340.Google Scholar
Hussain, Z. and Griffiths, M. D. (2009). The attitudes, feelings, and experiences of online gamers: A qualitative analysis. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 747–753.Google Scholar
James, N. and Busher, H. (2009). Online interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, N. W. and van Selm, M. (2005). Epilogue: Methodological concerns and innovations in internet research. In Hine, C. (ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., Hazel, M. and Williams, J. A. (2010). Effects of reticence, affect for communication channels, self-perceived competence on usage of instant messaging. Communication Research Reports, 27(2), 131–142.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2008). ‘This is not a lesbian wedding’: Examining same-sex marriage and bisexual-lesbian couples. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 237–260.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2011). Examining communication about marriage amendments: Same-sex couples and their extended social networks. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 264–281.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2013). Same-sex marriage and privacy management: Examining couples’ communication with family members. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 60–75.Google Scholar
Lannutti, P. J. (2014). Experiencing same-sex marriage: Individuals, couples, and social networks. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Poland, B. D. (2002). Transcription quality. In Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 629–649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S. and Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys for BGLT research. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. (2010). Online interviews in real time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Schwarz, O. (2011). Who moved my conversation? Instant messaging, intertextuality and new regimes of intimacy and truth. Media, Culture & Society, 33(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th edn). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Stieger, S., Eichinger, T. and Honeder, B. (2009). Can mate choice strategies explain sex differences?: The deceived persons’ feelings in reaction to revealed online deception of sex, age, and appearance. Social Psychology, 40(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Valkenberg, P. M. and Peter, J. (2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 79–97.Google Scholar
Whitty, M. T., Young, G. and Goodings, L. (2011). What I won’t do in pixels: Examining the limits of taboo violation in MMORPGs. Computers in Human Behaviors, 27(1), 268–275.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1997). Community in the abstract: A political and ethical dilemma. In Holmes, D. (ed.), Virtual politics: Identity & community in cyberspace (pp. 23–57). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Further Resources: Online

Further Resources: Readings

For a useful reflection from two PhD researchers on the strengths and weaknesses of using Skype in their research, see Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616.Google Scholar
For a short article that outlines the benefits of Skype for qualitative interviews in relation to face-to-face and telephone interviews, see Hanna, P. (2012). Using Internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.Google Scholar
To read about the results of the sustainable tourism study, see chapter 5: Identifying what and why: Reasons for engaging with sustainable tourism, in: Hanna, P. (2013a). Being sustainable in unsustainable environments. Charleston, NC: Amazon.Google Scholar
For more general advice on qualitative interviewing, see chapter 2: Crafting and conducting intensive interviews, in: Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

References

Abadie, R. (2010). The professional guinea pig: Big pharma and the risky world of human subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616.Google Scholar
Eatough, V. and Smith, J. (2006). ‘I was like a wild wild person’: Understanding feelings of anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 97(4), 483–498.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Elwood, S. and Martin, D. (2000). ‘Placing’ interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 649–657.Google Scholar
Evans, A., Elford, J. and Wiggins, D. (2008). Using the Internet for qualitative research. In Willig, C. and Stainton Rogers, W. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Friesen, N. (2009). Discursive psychology and educational technology: Beyond the cognitive revolution. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(2), 130–144.Google Scholar
Gkartzios, M. (2013). ‘Leaving Athens’: Narratives of counterurbanisation in times of crisis. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 158–167.Google Scholar
Green, A. R. and Young, R. A. (2015). The lived experience of visual creative expression for young adult cancer survivors. European Journal of Cancer Care, 24(5), 695–706.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. (2011). Consuming sustainable tourism: Ethics, identity, practice (Unpublished PhD thesis). Brighton, UK: University of Brighton.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. (2012). Using Internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. (2013a). Being sustainable in unsustainable environments. Charleston, NC: Amazon.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. (2013b). Foucauldian discourse analysis in psychology: Reflecting on a hybrid reading of Foucault when researching ‘ethical subjects’. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(2), 142–159.Google Scholar
Hill, D. M. and Hemmings, B. (2015). A phenomenological exploration of coping responses associated with choking in sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(4), 521–538.Google Scholar
Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Holt, A. (2010). Using telephones for narrative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 113–121.Google Scholar
Knapp, M., Hall, J. and Horgan, T. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (8th edn). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Leech, B. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 665–668.Google Scholar
Mwale, S. (2015). Risk, rewards and regulation: Exploring regulatory and ethical dimensions of human research participation in phase I (first-in-human) clinical trials in the United Kingdom (Unpublished PhD thesis). Brighton, UK: University of Sussex. Retrieved from: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/55221/Google Scholar
Pocock, J. (2000). Clinical trials: A practical approach. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281–307.Google Scholar
Rappaport, J. and Stewart, E. (1997). A critical look at critical psychology: Elaborating the questions. In Fox, D. and Prilleltensky, I. (eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 301–317). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, M. (2014). International migration and local emplacement: Everyday place-making practices of skilled migrants in Oslo, Norway. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 963–979.Google Scholar
Schuetz, S. (2013). Representations and experiences of HIV-positive women on the journey to motherhood in Canada (Unpublished PhD thesis). Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Smith, J. and Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith, J. (ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Wagemakers, S., Van Zoonen, L. and Turner, G. (2014). Giving meaning to RFID and cochlear implants. IEEE, Technology and Society Magazine, 33(2), 73–80.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. and Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In Willig, C. and Stainton Rogers, W. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73–90). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd edn). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Yarrow, A. (2013). ‘I’m strong within myself’: Gender, class and emotional capital in childcare. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(5), 651–668.Google Scholar

Further Resources: Online

The following websites provide information for young people about online safety: Stay Safe Online.org: www.staysafeonline.org/stop-think-connect/tips-and-advice

Safety Net Kids – staying safe online: www.safetynetkids.org.uk/personal-safety/staying-safe-online/

Further Resources: Readings

For a further discussion of real-time OFGs, see Fox, F., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2007a). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 17(4), 539–547.Google Scholar
To read more about the example study using real-time OFGs, see Fox, F., Rumsey, N. and Morris, M. (2007b). ‘Ur skin is the thing that everyone sees and you can’t change it!’: Exploring the appearance-related concerns of young people with psoriasis. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 10(3), 133–141.Google Scholar
For an exploration and comparison of the different ways young people share support via real-time and non-real-time online groups, see Fox, F., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2010). How do young people use disclosure in real-time and non-real-time online groups? Internet Journal of Web-Based Communities, 6(4), 337–348.Google Scholar
For a discussion of the strengths and limitations of OFGs, see Gaiser, T. (2008). Online focus groups. In Fielding, N. G., Lee, R. M. and Blank, G. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 290–306). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
For a comparison of face-to-face and non-real-time OFGs and an exploration of differences in participants’ preferences, experiences and engagement with either approach, see Nicholas, D. B., Lach, L., King, G., Scott, M., Boydell, K., Sawatzky, B. J., Reisman, J., Schippel, E. and Young, N. L. (2010). Contrasting Internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 105–121.Google Scholar

References

Adams, J., Rodham, K. and Gavin, J. (2005). Investigating the ‘self’ in deliberate self-harm. Qualitative Health Research, 15(10), 1293–1309.Google Scholar
Adler, C. L. and Zarchin, Y. R. (2002). The ‘virtual focus group’: Using the Internet to reach pregnant women on home bed rest. Journal of Obstetric, Gynaecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31(4), 418–427.Google Scholar
Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34(10), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boshoff, K., Alant, E. and May, E. (2005). Occupational therapy managers’ perceptions of challenges faced in early intervention service delivery in South Australia. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(3), 232–242.Google Scholar
Bosio, A. C., Graffigna, G. and Lozza, E. (2008). Toward theory and technique for online focus groups. In Hasson, T. (ed.), Handbook of research on digital information technologies: Innovations, methods and ethical issues (pp. 193–213). Denmark: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Collins, S. and Britten, N. (2006). Conversation analysis. In Pope, C. and Mays, N. (eds.), Qualitative research in health care (3rd edn, pp. 43–52). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davis, R. N. (1999). Web-based administration of a personality based questionnaire: Comparison with traditional methods. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 572–577.Google Scholar
Ess, C. and the AoIR ethics working committee (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from: www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. and Buhle, E. L. (1995). Using the Internet for data collection: An innovative electronic strategy. Computers in Nursing, 13(6), 273–279.Google Scholar
Fox, F., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2007a). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 17(4), 539–547.Google Scholar
Fox, F., Rumsey, N. and Morris, M. (2007b). ‘Ur skin is the thing that everyone sees and you can’t change it!’: Exploring the appearance-related concerns of young people with psoriasis. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 10(3), 133–141.Google Scholar
Fox, F., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2010). How do young people use disclosure in real-time and non-real-time online groups? International Journal of Web Based Communities, 6(4), 337–348.Google Scholar
Franklin, K. K. and Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research, 1(2), 169–184.Google Scholar
Gaiser, T. (1997). Conducting online focus groups: A methodological discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 15(2), 135–144.Google Scholar
Gaiser, T. (2008). Online focus groups. In Fielding, N. G., Lee, R. M. and Blank, G. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 290–306). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gibson, F. (2007). Conducting focus groups with children and young people: Strategies for success. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(5), 473–483.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Horn, S. (1998). Cyberville: Clicks, culture and the creation of an online town. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
Horrell, B., Stephens, C. and Breheny, M. (2015). Online research with informal caregivers: Opportunities and challenges. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3), 258–271.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H. F. and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.Google Scholar
Im, E. (2006). White cancer patients’ perception of gender and ethnic differences in pain experience. Cancer Nursing, 29(6), 441–452.Google Scholar
Internet World Stats (2014). Internet growth statistics. Retrieved from: www.Internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm.Google Scholar
de Jong, I., Reinders-Messelink, H. A., Janssen, W. G. M., Poelma, M. J., van Wijk, I. and van der Sluis, C. K. (2012). Activity and participation of children and adolescents with unilateral congenital below elbow deficiency: An online focus group study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(10), 885–892.Google Scholar
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
Keisler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 96–123.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., Kools, S. and Krueger, R. (2001). Methodological considerations in children’s focus groups. Nursing Research, 50(3), 184–187.Google Scholar
Kenny, A. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: An online focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Moloney, M. F., Dietrich, A. S., Strickland, O. and Myerburg, S. (2003). Using Internet discussion boards as virtual focus groups. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(4), 274–286.Google Scholar
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P. and Clapper, D. L. (1999). On-line focus groups: Conceptual issues and a research tool. European Journal of Marketing, 32(7/8), 713–723.Google Scholar
Morgan, M., Gibbs, S., Maxwell, K. and Britten, N. (2002). Hearing children’s voices: Methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Murray, P. J. (1997). Using virtual focus groups in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 542–545.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. B. (2003). Participant perceptions of online groupwork with fathers of children with spina bifida. In Sullivan, N., Lang, N. C., Goodman, D. and Mitchell, L. (eds.), Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, community and societal change (pp. 227–240). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. B., Lach, L., King, G., Scott, M., Boydell, K., Sawatzky, B. J., Reisman, J., Schippel, E. and Young, N. L. (2010). Contrasting Internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 105–121.Google Scholar
O’Connor, H. and Madge, C. (2003). Focus groups in cyberspace: Using the Internet for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 133–143.Google Scholar
Pastore, M. (2002). Internet key to communication among youth. Clickz network: Solutions for marketers.Google Scholar
Peacock, S., Robertson, A., Williams, S. and Clausen, M. (2009). The role of learning technologists in supporting e-research. ALT-J, 17(2), 115–129.Google Scholar
Pittenger, D. J. (2003). Internet research: An opportunity to revisit classical ethical problems in behavioural research. Ethics & Behaviour, 13(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
Reid, D. J. and Reid, F. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups: An in-depth comparison of computer mediated and conventional focus group discussions. International Journal of Market Research, 47(2), 131–162.Google Scholar
Reips, U. D. (2000). The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions. In Birmbaun, M. H. (ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89–117). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rezabek, R. (2000). Online focus groups: Electronic discussions for research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). Retrieved from: www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00rezabek-e.htmGoogle Scholar
Robson, K. (1999). Employment experiences of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease sufferers (Unpublished PhD thesis). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales.Google Scholar
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.Google Scholar
Stewart, F., Eckerman, E. and Zhou, K. (1998). Using the Internet in qualitative public health research: A comparison of Chinese and Australian young women’s perceptions of tobacco use. Internet Journal of Health Promotion, 12 [Online]. Retrieved from: www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/12/Google Scholar
Stewart, K. and Williams, M. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5, 395–416.Google Scholar
Suzuki, L. K. and Calzo, J. P. (2004). The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination of online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 685–698.Google Scholar
Sweet, C. (2001). Designing and conducting virtual focus group. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(3), 130–135.Google Scholar
Tanis, M. (2007). Online social support groups. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T. and Reips, U. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 139–153). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tates, K., Zwaanswijk, M., Otten, R., van Dulmen, S., Hoogerbrugge, P. M., Kamps, W. A. and Bensing, J. M. (2009). Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: Examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(15), 9–15.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Wootten, A. and Robinson, P. (2013). The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: Results from an online focus group. European Journal of Cancer Care, 22(4), 522–529.Google Scholar
Tesch, R. (1991). Software for qualitative researchers: Analysis needs and programme capabilities. In Fielding, N. G. and Lee, R. M. (eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 15–22). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tidwell, L. C. and Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348.Google Scholar
Turney, L. and Pocknee, C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
Tuttas, C. A. (2014). Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 25(1), 122–133.Google Scholar
Ward, K. J. (1999). The cyber-ethnographic (re)construction of two feminist online communities. Sociological Research Online, 4(1). Retrieved from: www.socresonline.org.uk/4/1/contents.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(3), 181–203.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2003). Virtually criminal: Deviance and harm within online environments (Unpublished PhD thesis). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales.Google Scholar
Williams, S. (2009). Understanding anorexia nervosa: An online phenomenological approach (Unpublished PhD thesis). Edinburgh, UK: Queen Margaret University.Google Scholar
Williams, S., Clausen, M. G., Robertson, A., Peacock, S. and McPherson, K. (2012). Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 368–383.Google Scholar
Ybarra, M. L., DuBois, L. Z., Parsons, J. T., Prescott, T. L. and Mustanski, B. (2014). Online focus groups as an HIV prevention programme for gay, bisexual and queer adolescent males. AIDS Education and Prevention, 26(6), 554–564.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×