Advertisement

Online Qualitative Methods: Confronting New Possibilities and Challenges Within a Social Justice Perspective

  • Dawn E. Trussell
  • Jen Apgar
  • Laura Kovac
Chapter

Abstract

Online spaces and the intersection with feminist research create new possibilities for qualitative inquiry. In this chapter, we examine the complexities of using social media as a data collection tool with qualitative methods traditionally used in offline research. Through critical reflections of a community-based research project that shifted its original research design from in-person, semi-structured interviews to an online asynchronous forum, we highlight three key areas where questions emerged as the project unfolded: (1) traditional qualitative methods in new digital platforms, (2) problematizing offline research ethics for online methods, and (3) citizen researchers and the temporality of knowledge mobilization.

References

  1. Bivens, R. (2015). Under the hood: The software in your feminist approach. Feminist Media Studies, 15(4), 714–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1053717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cleland, J. (2014). Racism, football fans, and online message boards: How social media has added a new dimension to a racist discourse in English football. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 38(5), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723513499922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comley, P., & Beaumont, J. (2011). Online research: Methods, benefits and issues – Part 2. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 13(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9312-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dadas, C. (2016). Messy methods: Queer methodological approaches to researching social media. Computers and Composition, 40, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davison, K., & Frank, B. (2007). Sexualities, genders, and bodies in sport: Changing practices of inequity. In K. Young & P. White (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada (2nd ed., pp. 178–193). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. de Jong, A. (2015). Using Facebook as a space for storytelling in geographical research. Geographical Research, 53(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eynon, R., Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. (2009). New techniques in online research: Challenges for research ethics. Twenty-First Century Society, 4(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450140903000308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fielding, N. G. (2014). Qualitative research and our digital futures. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1064–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414545237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fink, J. S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2015-0278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, F. E., Morris, M., & Rumsey, N. (2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 19(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306298754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Genoe, M. R., Liechty, T., Marston, H. R., & Sutherland, V. (2016). Blogging into retirement. Using qualitative online research methods to understand leisure among baby boomers. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.18666/JLR-2016-V48-I1-6257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill, R. (2009). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia. In R. Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 228–244). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hays, C. A., Spiers, J. A., & Paterson, B. (2015). Opportunities and constraints in disseminating qualitative research in Web 2.0 virtual environments. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1576–1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horrell, B., Stephens, C., & Breheny, M. (2015). Online research with informal caregivers: Opportunities and challenges. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1040318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Levy, D. L. (2015). Discovering grounded theories for social justice. In C. W. Johnson & D. C. Parry (Eds.), Fostering social justice through qualitative inquiry (pp. 71–99). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.Google Scholar
  18. Long, J., Fletcher, T., & Watson, B. (2017). Introducing sport, leisure and social justice. In J. Long, T. Fletcher, & B. Watson (Eds.), Sport, leisure and social justice (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Madge, C. (2007). Developing a geographers’ agenda for online research ethics. Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 654–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (version 2.0). Retrieved from the Association of Internet Researchers website: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  21. Marres, N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: On intervention in digital social research, broadly conceived. The Sociological Review, 60, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGeeney, E. (2015). Live tweeting and building the digital archive; #NFQLR – Who and what is it for? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1017898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McInroy, L. B. (2016). Pitfalls, potentials, and ethics of online survey research: LGBTQ and other marginalized and hard-to-access youths. Social Work Research, 40(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svw005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrow, O., Hawkins, R., & Kern, L. (2015). Feminist research in online spaces. Gender, Place and Culture, 22(4), 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.879108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parry, D. C., & Johnson, C. W. (2015). Theoretical perspectives for social justice inquiry. In C. W. Johnson & D. C. Parry (Eds.), Fostering social justice through qualitative inquiry (pp. 23–41). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.Google Scholar
  26. Parry, D. C., Johnson, C. W., & Stewart, W. (2013). Leisure research for social justice: A response to Henderson. Leisure Sciences, 36(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.739906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stokowski, P. (1999). Trophy hunting in the shadow of the castle keep. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 189–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trussell, D. E., Kovac, L., & Apgar, J. (2018). LGBTQ parents’ experiences of community youth sport: Change your forms, change your (hetero) norms. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walker, N. A., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. L. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institutionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Health SciencesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  2. 2.Community ResearcherGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Brock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations