Advertisement

Qualitative Methoden der Psychologischen Online-Forschung

  • Timo Gnambs
  • Bernad Batinic
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Psychologie book series (SRP)

Zusammenfassung

Innerhalb von wenigen Jahrzehnten hat das Internet zahlreiche Lebensbereiche einschneidend verändert. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet entsprechende Auswirkungen auf die psychologische Forschung und diskutiert Möglichkeiten qualitativer Forschungsvorhaben mithilfe internetbasierter Ansätze. Insbesondere die Besonderheiten von qualitativen Online-Interviews und Online-Beobachtungen werden näher beleuchtet und traditionellen Forschungsmethoden gegenübergestellt. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Ausblick auf künftige technologische Entwicklungen wie Echtzeitmessung mittels Smartphones und der Analyse von Big Data in der Psychoinformatik, welche den Methodenkanon für qualitativ tätige Forschende erweitern.

Schlüsselwörter

Internet Interview Chat Fokusgruppe Virtuelle Welten 

Literatur

  1. Al-Saggaf, Y., & Williamson, K. (2004). Online communities in Saudi Arabia: Evaluating the impact on culture through online semi-structured interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(3). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403247. Zugegriffen am 17.02.2017.
  2. Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute [ADM]. (2016). Zahlen zur Marktforschung. https://www.adm-ev.de/zahlen/. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  3. Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute [ADM], Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute [ASI], Berufsverband Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforscher [BVM], & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Online Forschung [DGOF]. (2014). Richtlinie für Untersuchungen in den und mittels der Sozialen Medien (Soziale Medien Richtlinie). http://rat-marktforschung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/R11_RDMS_D.pdf. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  4. ARD/ZDF. (2016). ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudien 1997–2016. http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  5. Arth, C., Grasset, R., Gruber, L., Langlotz, T., Mulloni, A., & Wagner, D. (2015). The history of mobile augmented reality (Technischer Bericht ICG–TR–2015-001). Graz: University of Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Bampton, R., Cowton, C. J., & Downs, Y. (2013). The e-interview in qualitative research. In N. Sappleton (Hrsg.), Advancing research methods with technologies (S. 329–343). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barratt, M. J. (2012). The efficacy of interviewing young drug users through online chat. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 566–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00399.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beranuy, M., Carbonell, X., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). A qualitative analysis of gaming addicts in treatment. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 149–161. doi: 10.1007/s11469-012-9405-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse and Society, 12, 291–313. doi: 10.1177/0957926501012003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan, T., & Williams, J. E. (2010). Ethical issues in psychological research on the Internet. In S. D. Gosling & J. A. Johnson (Hrsg.), Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research (S. 255–271). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaney, M. P., & Dew, B. J. (2003). Online experience of sexually compulsive men who have sex with men. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 10, 259–274. doi: 10.1080/10720160390268960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2011). Internet history. International Journal of Technoethics, 2, 45–64. doi: 10.4018/jte.2011040104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14, 603–616. doi: 10.1177/1468794113488126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Domínguez, D., Beaulieu, A., Estalella, A., Gómez, E., Read, R., & Schnettler, B. (Hrsg.). (2007). Virtuelle Ethnografie. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/8. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  15. Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5. Aufl.). Berlin/Deutschland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drisko, J. W. (2013). Qualitative data analysis software. In A. E. Fortune, W. J. Reid & R. L. Miller Jr. (Hrsg.), Qualitative research in social work (S. 284–303). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Erdogan, G. (2001). Die Gruppendiskussion als qualitative Datenerhebung im Internet: Ein Online-Offline-Vergleich. kommunikation@gesellschaft, 2. http://www.soz.uni-frankfurt.de/K.G/B5_2001_Erdogan_a.html. Zugegriffen am 27.052017.
  18. Evans, A., Elford, J., & Wiggins, D. (2008). Using the Internet for qualitative research. In C. Willig & W. S. Rogers (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (S. 315–333). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feldman, J., Romine, R. S., & Bockting, W. O. (2014). HIV risk behaviors in the US transgender population: Prevalence and predictors in a large Internet sample. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 1558–1588. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2014.944048.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Franklin, R. A. (2010). The hate directory. http://web.archive.org/web/20140402122017/http://hatedirectory.com/hatedir.pdf. Zugegriffen am 17.02.2017.
  21. Glaser, J., Dixit, J., & Green, D. P. (2002). Studying hate crime with the Internet: What makes racists advocate racial violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 177–193. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gnambs, T., & Kaspar, K. (2015). Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: A meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1237–1259. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015). Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 877–902. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J., John, O. P., & Potter, J. (2010). Wired but not WEIRD: The promise of the Internet in reaching more diverse samples. Behavioral and Brain Science, 33, 94–95. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffiths, M. D., Hussain, Z., Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., Cole, H., Davies, M. N., Chappell, D., et al. (2011). Social interactions in online gaming. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1, 20–36.Google Scholar
  26. Herring, S. C. (2008). Virtual community. In L. M. Given (Hrsg.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Bd. 2, S. 920–921). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Hine, C. (2008). Virtual ethnography: Modes, varieties, affordances. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee & G. Blank (Hrsg.), The Sage handbook of online research methods (S. 257–270). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holtz, P., & Wagner, W. (2009). Essentialism and attribution of monstrosity in racist discourse: Right-wing Internet postings about Africans and Jews. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 411–425. doi: 10.1002/casp.1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hookway, N. (2008). Entering the blogosphere: Some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research, 8, 91–113. doi: 10.1177/1468794107085298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hou, H. T. (2012). Exploring the behavioral patterns of learners in an educational massively multiple online role-playing game (MMORPG). Computers & Education, 58, 1225–1233. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). doi:  10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00238.x.
  32. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Nosek, B. A., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: The „many labs“ replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178.
  33. Kozinets, R. V. (2015). Netnography redefined. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, R. M., Fielding, N. G., & Blank, G. (2008). The Internet as a research medium. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee & G. Blank (Hrsg.), The Sage handbook of online research methods (S. 3–20). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Lim, M. S. C., Sacks-Davis, R., Aitken, C. K., Hocking, J. S., & Hellard, M. E. (2010). A randomised controlled trial of paper, online and SMS diaries for collecting sexual behaviour information from young people. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64, 885–889. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.085316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, P., Tov, W., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., & Qiu, L. (2015). Do Facebook status updates reflect subjective well-being? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18, 373–379. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Madge, C., & O’Connor, H. (2002). On-line with e-mums: Exploring the Internet as a medium for research. Area, 34, 92–102. doi: 10.1111/1475-4762.00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2002). Internet communication and qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2007). Open Access – Auswirkungen einer Informationskrise … als Chance für die Information. Journal für Psychologie, 15(2), https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/130/121. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  40. Moylan, C. A., Derr, A. S., & Lindhorst, T. (2015). Increasingly mobile: How new technologies can enhance qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 14, 36–47. doi: 10.1177/1473325013516988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Musch, J. (1997). Die Geschichte des Netzes: ein historischer Abriß. In B. Batinic (Hrsg.), Internet für Psychologen (S. 15–37). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  42. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Yarkoni, T., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374.
  43. O’Connor, E. L., Longman, H., White, K. M., & Obst, P. L. (2015). Sense of community, social identity and social support among players of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs): A qualitative analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. doi: 10.1002/casp.2224. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  44. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 11. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604118. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  45. Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., Seligman, M. E., et al. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 934–952. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000020.
  46. Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. M. (2005). Online focus groups: An in-depth comparison of computer-mediated and conventional focus group discussion. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 131–162.Google Scholar
  47. Rutter, J., & Smith, G. W. (2005). Ethnographic presence in a nebulous setting. In C. Hine (Hrsg.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (S. 81–92). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  48. Schiek, D., & Ullrich, C. G. (2015). Tagungsbericht: Qualitative Online-Erhebungen. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502287. Zugegriffen am 27.05.2017.
  49. Schroeder, R. (2006). Being there and the future of connected presence. Presence: Journal of Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 438–454. doi: 10.1162/pres.15.4.438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skitka, L. J., & Sargis, E. (2006). The Internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 529–555. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420–433. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Synnot, A., Hill, S., Summers, M., & Taylor, M. (2014). Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 431–438. doi: 10.1177/1049732314523840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tilley, L., & Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Is it the end for anonymity as we know it? A critical examination of the ethical principle of anonymity in the context of 21st century demands on the qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research, 11, 197–212. doi: 10.1177/1468794110394073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tippins, N. T. (2015). Technology and assessment in selection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 551–582. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2013). Ambulatory assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 151–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2014). The role of ambulatory assessment in psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 466–470. doi: 10.1177/0963721414550706.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Tynes, B. M. (2007). Role taking in online „classrooms“: What adolescents are learning about race and ethnicity. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1312–1320. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research. The Information Society, 12, 129–139. doi: 10.1080/713856142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Science revolves around the data. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 1(1), e1. doi: 10.5334/jopd.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams, M. (2007). Avatar watching: Participant observation in graphical online environments. Qualitative Research, 7, 5–24. doi: 10.1177/1468794107071408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Woods, M., Paulus, T., Atkirns, D. P., & Macklin, R. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994–2013. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 597–617. doi: 10.1177/0894439315596311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yarkoni, T. (2012). Psychoinformatics: New horizons at the interface of the psychological and computing sciences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 391–397. doi: 10.1177/0963721412457362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Institut für BildungsverläufeBambergDeutschland
  2. 2.Universität LinzLinzÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations