Using Technology and the Internet in Research

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides practical guidance to fellow researchers on how to write a strong Internet- or other new technology-based application. Advances in technology and the Internet have provided new opportunities and alternatives for researchers to survey the health of populations, to conduct in-depth qualitative studies, and to test online interventions in order to promote health and prevent disease in populations, including virtual communities. Proposing an application using the Internet or new technology changes how one thinks about, designs and executes a research project. A strong research application will reflect familiarity with these differences, detail key advantages of using the technology, and acknowledge the key disadvantages or limitations, while proposing the strongest scientific studies. Fifteen tips on writing a strong technology-based application are provided.

Keywords

Obesity Income Syphilis Clarification Rounded 

References

  1. Allen M. (2003). Michael Allen’s Guide to E-learning: Building Interactive, Fun and Effective Learning Programs for Any Company. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander GL, Divine GW, Couper MP, et al. (2008). Effect of incentives and mailing features on online health program enrollment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 382–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bethell C, Fiorillo J, Lansky D, Hendryx M, Knickman J. (2004). Online consumer surveys as a methodology for assessing the quality of the United States health care system. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6, e2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockting WO, Miner M, Robinson BE, et al. (2003). Use of the internet to reach the U.S. transgender population for HIV/STD prevention research. Paper presented at: STD/HIV Prevention and the Internet Conference; August 25–27, 2003; Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Bull SS, Lloyd L, Reitmeijer CA, McFarlane M. (2004). Recruitment and retention of an online sample for an HIV prevention intervention targeting men who have sex with men: the Smart Sex Quest Project. AIDS Care, 16(8), 931–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conrad FG, Schober MF. (2008). Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  8. Eysenbach G, Till JE. (2005). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323, 1103–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hooper S, Rosser BRS, Horvath KJ, Oakes JM, Danilenko G, Men’s INTernet Sex II (MINTS-II) Team. (2008). An online needs assessment of a virtual community: What men who use the Internet to seek sex with men want in Internet-based HIV prevention. AIDS and Behavior, 2, 867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Konstan JA, Rosser BRS, Ross MW, Stanton J, Edwards WM. (2005). The story of subject naught: a cautionary but optimistic tale of internet survey research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2).Google Scholar
  11. Klausner JD, Wolf W, Fischer, Ponce L, Zolt I, Katz MH. (2000). Tracing a syphilis outbreak through Cyberspace. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284,447–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kraut R, Olson J, Banaji M, Bruckman A, Cohen J, Couper M. (2004). Psychological research online: report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the conduct of research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krueger RA. (2008). Telephone and Internet focus groups. Unpublished course handout from the course Edpa 5528: Focus Group Interviewing Research Methods, taught at the University of Minnesota by Dr. Richard Krueger.Google Scholar
  14. Krueger RA, Casey MA. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (3rd Ed). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Liau A, Millett G, Marks G. (2006). Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33, 576–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Institutes of Health (NIMH) (2008). NIH Roadmap for Medical Research: Overview of the NIH Roadmap. http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/overview.asp. Accessed December 18, 2008.
  17. Pequegnat W, Rosser BRS, Bowen A, et al. (2007). Conducting Internet-based HIV/STD prevention survey research: considerations in design and evaluation. AIDS and Behavior, 11, 505–521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosser BRS, Gurak L, Horvath KJ, Oakes JM, Konstan J, Danilenko G. (2009). The challenges of ensuring participant consent in Internet-based sex studies: a case study of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS-I and II) studies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13:746–756.Google Scholar
  19. Rosser BRS, Oakes JM, Bockting WO, Babes G, Miner M. (2007). Capturing the social demographics of hidden sexual minorities: An Internet study of the transgender population in the United States. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 4(2), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867–873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Warren JR. (2009). Spheres of influence: Reconfiguring identity in ehealth communication targeting minority and urban communities. Paper presented at: Johnson & Johnson Blue Ribbon Health and Medical Speakers Series, Communication Perspectives on Community Health and Wellness; January 23, 2009; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Warren JR, Allen M, Okuyemi K, Kvasny L, Hecht ML. (2009). Targeting single parents in preadolescent substance use prevention: Internet characteristics and information relevance. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy,doi:10.1080/09687630802559083.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Writing StudiesUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations