In order to master the art of online surveys I have been experimenting with how to use SurveryMonkey.com. Here is my first attempt at utilising the tools – ‘Social Networking Sites Usage Survey’.
Image c/o Thomas Hawk licensed under Creative Commons.
The following question was posed as part of the research module which forms part of my current studies:
Question: You are interested in how on-line environments are used by local and national governments. In particular you want to know whether the internet changes the way(s) the governments have been run.
Here I shall aim to consider the various methods that could be utilised to study this topic and the potential ethical issues surrounding this research question.
Data source & methods
In relation to this subject it would be possible to obtain data from a wide and diverse range of sources. These could include;
- Interviews – These could be undertaken with those working within local and/or national government to obtain first hand accounts of how they feel the internet has (or has not) changed the way they operate.
- Analysis of policy documents and media coverage – There is potential with this question to look at sources of information that have documented how governments have been run differently over a period of time. Examples of this would be to analyse government policy to track the changes and impacts of the internet. Alternatively it would be possible to look at the media portrayals of governments and their use of on-line environments.
- Analysis of on-line environments utilised by governments – As part of answering this research question it would also be important to look at the on-line environments themselves to see how they are being used by governments.
- Surveys – These could be used to collect data from the general public to see if they have seen any changes in how governments operate as a result of the web.
It is interesting to note that a previous study (Hands, 2005) that looked at the impact of the internet on encouraging local citizens to engage with local government employed a similar range of mixed methods. These were a review of policy, local government website analysis and questionnaires to local government employees.
Practical ties
In undertaking research on this subject there would be some practical issues that would need to be considered at the outset of the study. Firstly there maybe limited access to the internal documentation/policy that could be used for analysis. Also in relation to the possibility of interviewing government employees these individuals may not be willing to take part in the research.
The nature of the question is also very open and there are a variety of methods that could be utilised to collect data pertaining to this topic. Therefore to make the study practical and to obtain the ‘best results’ it would be advisable to focus on comparing national and local government within one country, limited to one element of governance.
Ethical issues
There are a number of ethical considerations in relation to researching the question posed. These include those surrounding the research subjects (interviewees, survey respondents and so on) and those surrounding the researcher.
In relation to the research subjects it would be important for them to remain anonymous. Their views regarding how the internet has changed how governments have been run may not be positive. For example if government workers were willing to be interviewed it could have an impact on their future employment.
The researcher would also need to consider the implications of the findings of the study on them and how the study maybe interpreted by the governments under the microscope.
Image c/o DavidErickson licensed under Creative Commons.
Yesterday I attended a guest lecture at the University of Salford delivered by Dr Greg Elmer. Greg is Bell Globemedia Research Chair and Director of the Infoscape Research Lab at Ryerson University in Toronto. The thought provoking lecture was entitled “Open Source Video: Testing The Limits of Participatory Media Making”.
Greg talked about a project he is currently working on with colleagues to investigate the use of emerging collaborative video production tools (in this case Open Source Cinema – which also brought us the award winning RIP! A Remix Manifesto) and the potential to use these to produce a ‘crowd sourced’, organic documentary.
The subject matter for the documentary has been inspired by a recent book written by Greg and Professor Andy Opel ‘Preempting Dissent – The Politics of An Inevitable Future‘ which looks at the nature of surveillance and governance in the wake of the ‘War on Terror.’
The project asks people to contribute to a documentary*, ‘Preempting Dissent – Open Sourcing Secrecy’, by uploading content, remixing it, mashing it up as well as help shape the nature of the ’story’ arc. Although Greg and co. plan to provide the names of six chapters for the film this will also evolve as the project continues.
The outcome of the project will be a feature length documentary and an archive of content that can be utilised/remixed by others to produce new work.
I will be interested to see the final film although I think it is the process of production that is most interesting here. How elements of social media are being used for the construction of art (this more traditional media form in the nature of a documentary), for looking at questions of who participates or the type of content people are prepared to supply, as well as the implications for the future of documentary film making.
*Those that wish to participate in the project can do so at opensourcecinema.org
Image c/o Matzuda licensed under Creative Commons.
There is a proliferation of online survey tools that can be used to undertake research. These include sites such as SurveyMonkey.com, QuestionPro and KeySurvey. However despite the fact it is now easier than ever to create online surveys it is valuable to consider the pros and cons of this method of data collection:
Pros
- Volume of data – Online surveys allow to the researcher to survey and collect data for a large volume of people.
- Ease of distribution – By publishing a questionnaire online it makes it easier to circulate it to the sample group that is being asked to participate in the study.
- Quick – The production and distribution of an online survey is less time consuming then other methods such as in-home interviews, telephone surveys or mail surveys.
- Customisable – Sites such as SurveyMonkey.com allow the user to be able to quickly and easily customise the layout, design etc. of the survey.
- Trackable – Ability to accurately monitor the number of respondents and validate survey responses.
- Inexpensive – Many online survey sites offer a free service or have a minimal charge.
- Removal of interviewer bias – Unlike interviews and face-to-face surveys this method removes the chance of the interviewer having any influence on the answers given.
- Structured questions – Ability to ensure the same questions are asked in the same way to all participants.
- Anonymity – Online surveys offer the potential for respondents to remain anonymous and therefore they maybe more willing to answer sensitive questions.
Cons
- Verifying identity – When using online surveys it is difficult to verify the identity of the respondents.
- Poor response rate – Online surveys are considered to have a low response rate. On average this is in the region of 30% (IaR, 2007)
- Quality of responses – Due to the nature of online surveys and the lack of an ‘interviewer’ it is difficult to ensure quality control of the responses given by the participants.
- Lack of clarification – Online surveys provide no opportunity for the respondent to clarify what is meant by a particular question. Therefore questions maybe misinterpreted impacting on the outcome.
- Ensuring a representative sample – It is difficult to ensure a representative sample as it is dependent on who responds.
- Templates - There maybe limitations to the software in terms of the ways in which the questionnaires can be designed.
Image c/o Marco Bellucci licensed under Creative Commons.
The days when the family huddled around the wireless maybe long gone but PURE are putting the social back in radio. Launching at the end of November the PURE Sensia is an internet-connected digital audio system which includes an iPhone stylee touchscreen interface providing a unique listening experience.
Yet what I am really intrigued by is that the Sensia comes with integrated applications including Twitter, Facebook and news feeds – with more to follow when the Sensia Software Development Kit is released to third parties. With the development of such products social media is making further inroads into all aspects of our daily lives. I am not sure if he or I would be most surprised that I can now roll over each morning and be woken by the wit and wisdom of @stephenfry.
So whatever next with all this convergence? Tweeting toasters? Internet irons? Facebook fridges?
Image c/o Ian Hayhurst licensed under Creative Commons.
I have been reading ‘Everyday life, online: U.S. college students’ use of the internet‘ by Jones, Johnson-Yale, Millermainer and Perez (2009).
The study looked at understanding how college students in the United States use the internet compared to the results of research undertaken in 2002. The research methods used were a mix of quantitive and qualitative – survey, observation and interviews.
In comparison to my previous post regarding the Jernigan and Mistree (2009) study the varied methodologies used uncovered more (maybe) than quantitive research would have done alone.
Despite this I had to question the firsthand observations as a way of getting ‘under the skin’ of what college kids do online. Jones, Johnson-Yale, Millermainer and Perez (2009) state that the observations were made in public places (on different days and at different times) where students hooked up to the web. Yet the questionnaire results stated that 66% of respondents used the computer in their dorm room / apartment the most. Therefore was what the students were surfing outside of their bedrooms representative of their total time online?
In addition the observations monitored how groups of students gathered around ‘public’ computers to look at Facebook and MySpace profiles for example – as entertainment.
I argue that the lack of privacy (and potentially the blocking of some websites on college computers) limited what the students did and didn’t look at in open view – certainly compared to what they may choose to indulge in viewing behind closed doors. The students revealed through the surveys that they did view adult websites, engage in file sharing and pay bills online for example – probably not websites appropriate for consumption in public.
Therefore although the observations have identified some interesting phenomena such as social network(ing) sites as a form of group ‘event’ for the college students, it remains to be seen how truly representative they are in comparison to the results of the interviews and surveys conducted.
Image c/o twenty_questions licensed under Creative Commons.
A friend introduced me to this video made for Tameside Young People’s Services (produced by JMG Media and the WISH media project) for their prevention of teen pregnancy campaign. Thought it might provide some inspiration for one of the looming community projects.
Om Nom nom nom today the Cookie Monster has been mostly eating google.co.uk searches rather than his staple diet. It’s all in aid of celebrating the 40th anniversary of Big Bird and chums. Can’t imagine what a wild party they’ll be having down Sesame Street tonight.
As part of my studies I have been introduced to First Monday which is one of the first peer-reviewed open access journals on the internet, about the internet. In an attempt to get to grips with quantitative (measurables) and qualitative (opinioned observation) research methods, our group has been tasked with reading October’s papers and analysing the approaches utilised.
One study presented was Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation (Jernigan and Mistree 2009) especially as I had read coverage of the research and the privacy debates in the mainstream media in recent weeks.
The research utilised the quantitative techniques to profile 4080 Facebook users within the MIT Facebook network. And hypothesis testing was undertaken to establish “a method for accurately predicting the sexual orientation of Facebook users by analysing friendship associations” (Jernigan and Mistree, 2009).
Despite the success of the study (which did accurately predict Facebook user’s sexual orientation based on the information the information collated about their Facebook friends) I think it is interesting to consider some of the “problems” surrounding this methodology (many of which were identified by Jernigan and Mistree).
Equal contact status – This was part of the basis of the study (people having a predisposition to socialise with people “like” them). Although this may predominately be the case it ignores the fact that there are anomalies and not everyone behaves in this way.
Human sexuality - In Facebook users sexuality has to be defined by distinct categories (interested in men, women, both men and women or undefined). In reality sexuality is more complex than this… as the authors describe “the world can not be divided into sheep and goats” (so to speak!) Is it realistic to expect the identity chosen in Facebook to always match the “reality”. Also this means that identities such a transgender remain ignored.
“Friends” – What is a Facebook friend? Many FB users have 100s(+) of so called “friends” within their network. How representative are these connections in comparison to an individuals “sympathy group” which is the average number of people (12) whose death would leave you truly devastated. This piece of research can not get under the skin of this question.
The tools - The recruiting/profiling of each FB account was undertaken by an automated spider (Arachne). Although this helps remove human bias from the research process it also means the subtleties of human interpretation are missed. For example the study can not account for the differences that arose between lesbian and gay male FB relationships. Also the way in which the spider operated meant that it collated data over 18 days in total rather than taking a ’snapshot’ at one point in time.
Trade offs - The nature of the logistical regression model used means that there is an ongoing balancing act between “specificity , a measure of the model’s susceptibility to false positives, and sensitivity, the probability the model correctly predicts a characteristic” (Signorovitch, 2007 in Jernigan and Mistree, 2009).
Threats to validity – Jernigan and Mistree also identify various threats to the validity of the results of the study, including the selection method (the validation dataset came from profiles known to the authors to be gay males by prior knowledge) and history – National Coming Out Day was held 13 days before the research began.
Ethics – The data for this research was obtained without the knowledge of the FB users, although it was in the public domain and the individuals have been anonimised. This raises many questions regarding privacy and the ethics of collecting information in this way.
In conclusion it can be said that the study can not reveal causation but only correlation. The methodology is useful to obtain an overall picture however human identity and relationships are complex and therefore maybe can not be fully understood utilising these techniques.
Image c/o Kaptain Kobold licensed under Creative Commons.
