Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2020
DOI: 10.1177/1468794120904898
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Doing Internet research with hard-to-reach communities: methodological reflections on gaining meaningful access

Abstract: This article contributes to scholarship on digital sociology by addressing the methodological challenge of gaining access to hard-to-reach online communities. We use assemblage theory to argue how collaborative efforts of human participants, digital technologies, techniques, authorities, cultural codes and the human researcher co-determine aspects of gaining access to online subjects. In particular, we analyse how credibility and reflexivity are assembled in an online research context. This is exemplified by o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They preferred to have interview questions in advance and responded in writing. We allowed this to happen because it enabled the inclusion of hard-to-reach communities (see also Kaufmann & Tzanetakis, 2020); however, we noted a limitation to follow up with additional questions. Overall, we felt that Zoom interviews were close substitutes for face-to-face interviews, while phone interviews and email interviews were less interactive and often lacked the opportunity to probe for a deeper understanding.…”
Section: Strengths and Weaknesses Of The Revised Research Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They preferred to have interview questions in advance and responded in writing. We allowed this to happen because it enabled the inclusion of hard-to-reach communities (see also Kaufmann & Tzanetakis, 2020); however, we noted a limitation to follow up with additional questions. Overall, we felt that Zoom interviews were close substitutes for face-to-face interviews, while phone interviews and email interviews were less interactive and often lacked the opportunity to probe for a deeper understanding.…”
Section: Strengths and Weaknesses Of The Revised Research Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In certain cases, email interviews can also enable the inclusion of participants that would not otherwise be able to participate in the research for various reasons. Further, email interviews can offer a possibility to research communities that are otherwise hard to reach (Bjerke, 2010; Kaufmann & Tzanetakis, 2020). Consequently, email interviews can allow a more flexible choice of participants (Valdez & Gubrium, 2020).…”
Section: Email Interviewingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The strategies we presented are drawn from our singular experience, although they are supported by other scholars' past efforts to conduct rigorous virtual qualitative inquiry (Archibald et al, 2019;Deakin & Wakefield, 2014;Kaufmann & Tzanetakis, 2020;Krouwel et al, 2019;Roberts et al, 2021;Salmons, 2015). In the future, systematic exploration of the effects of virtual methods on the quality of qualitative inquiry would add to the growing body of literature-based primarily on case exemplars.…”
Section: Impli C Ati On S For N Ur S Ingmentioning
confidence: 99%