DNRall, Research Traditions, 19/09/04, 1 Locating internet research methods within five qualitative research traditions Denise N. Rall, PhD candidate,

DNRall, Research Traditions, 19/09/04, 1

Locating internet research methods within five qualitative

research traditions

Denise N. Rall, PhD candidate, [email protected] of Environmental Science & Mgmt.,Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW Australia19 September 2004, Sussex University, UK


Where is IS&R ?

a meta-field* or a minefield ?{the universe of all possible disciplines}

* (Silver, 2004)


Working definition. . .

“Internet Studies & Research, as it develops within programs of study or

research projects at universities, research centers or institutes, is elaborated by

scholars who work across the disciplines and take the internet, its use and users as

their focus/locus of study and research” (Rall, 2004).


“While simultaneously drawing and building from other, older research streams (computers & composition, computer-supported cooperative work, hyper/cybertext theory, and human-computer interaction, to name just a few) . . . internet studies . . . continues to grow as what can only be called a

Meta-field of study”

(Silver, 2004, p. 55)


internet-base research methods. . .

the internet as a general-purpose research tool?

vs.internet researchers who seek answers via the internet to a more particular set of inquiries . . .

internet scholars pose their questions in a variety of ways and to particular ends . . .


Locus & Focus

{general purpose internet-based research}

internet scholarship


Creswell’s research paradigms*

1) ontological2) epistemological3) axiological4) rhetorical; and 5) methodological.

* from (Guba & Lincoln, 1988)


Ontological - What is the nature of reality?

Epistemological - What is the relationship between the

researcher and that being researched?

Axiological - What is the role of values?

Rhetorical - What is the language of research?

Methodological - What is the process of research?

* (Creswell 1998, p. 75)

Five paradigmatic questions* . . .

Ontological - Where do we start?

Epistemological -How do we travel (maps, guides, etc.)?

Axiological - How do we best treat others & ourselves?

Rhetorical - How does language facilitate meaning?

Methodological - How do we best connect our research to

other scholars?

* (Rall, 2004)

Denise* rephrases the 5 questions . . .


the internet as focus/locus of inquiry*...

*(Schneider & Foot, 2004, “The web as an object of study”)

1) where do we start?


internet ontology. . .the bit

plastic - takes on representation, a container

the bit is the core of computation

computation builds an analytical engine (Turing machine) designed to simulate* various logic systems (computers)

meanings are assigned, manipulated, changed or deleted.

* (Weizenbaum 1976)


ontology - as research direction

bit - takes on representation, a container

information

communication (media, packet)

rhetorical

cognitive, psychological



2) how do we travel?


epistemology - as research direction

maps & guides-

methods

procedures

locating core processes (vs. surface representations)

So, what happens when what we see is nothing we can count? Or what we wish to count is nothing that we can see?



3) how do we best treat others and ourselves?


ethical considerations-

data collection (methods, procedures)data analysis (how to understand & represent

informants)institutional requirements (review boards)critical analysis (how to best portray informant

participation)

ethics - as research direction



4) how does language facilitate meaning?


rhetoric - as research direction

analytical frameworks -

textualnarrative, content & discourse analysis

contexts

metaphor

community



5) how do we connect our research to others?


methodology - as research direction

building relationships between-

specific tools (webtracker, webcrawlers, etc.)

research methods (social network analysis, web sphere analysis)

methodologies (critical approaches, methodological assumptions)

[in order to]

connect one’s specific inquiry to a larger understanding of methodology and the role it plays in social science research


internet or other network-based network-based technologiestechnologiesnew media(s)cyberculture(s)

research methods,methodological assumptions & critical approaches

interactive strategies and/or relationships - with people people (virtual or ‘real’’)(virtual or ‘real’’)

Denise’s theoretical parameters for Internet Studies & Research

OUTCOMES ?

CONTEXT(s)?


Denise N. Rall, PhD [email protected]

School of Environmental Science & MgmtSouthern Cross University

“Web as mirror” workshop, 19 September 2004

end



Internet Studies & Research grows:

1999 - Curtin University (Perth) opens the first under-

& p-grad degrees & diplomas - Internet Studies

1999 - Brandeis University (small, liberal arts college)

in Pennsylvania - IS minor for u-grad’s

2001 - Center for Internet Studies opens at UMinn. as a

p-grad degree program (Rhetoric & Sci. Comm.)

AoIR continues to grow, meetings in 2000, 2001, 2002

2002 - Oxford Internet Institute is formally launched


Locus for ISR:

universities, with degree programs -

universities, with a program (study focus) & doctoral students w/ ‘outside’ research assignments -

research centers with research commitments & requirements for policy outcomes, symposia,

current post-doctoral fellows, pub’s & online Master’s) -

Three sites viewed as exemplars — Locus does not provide much commonality for ISR.

Curtin -

Uminn -

- Oxford Internet Institute -


Chap. 3 - Interdisciplinarity & the rise of ISR as a field of study*

mapping ISR as a discipline is probably not appropriate, as it is

multi/inter/trans/post/disciplinary.

there are other structures & mechanisms outlined in ‘interdisciplinarity’.

* includes many types of programs: e-science, e-government, etc.


cf.: Fensham, P, 2002: ‘Science education as a field of research’ - ASERA 33, Townsville, QLD, July 2002 - from A/Prof. Keith Skamp

ISR conforms closely to other studies, such as, Science Education Studies

• scientific knowledge•distinctive questions•concept/theory develop.•Design & methodology•Progression of research

Structural criteria

Outcome criterion:

Intra-research criteria

Develop’tl. criteria

Implications for practice

• models of research•seminal publications•research training

• Academic recognition•Professional associations•Research Journals - peer•Meetings & Conferences- peer•Active study/ research centers


Prelim. Results - ISR is integrated with other fields w/ ‘normal academic work practices’

university programs; degrees awarded growing professional association (400; 4 years) many venues for publication, New Media & Society; Journal of Internet Research, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications & Policy, etc. Online research strategies & methodologies**Mann & Stewart (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A handbook for researching online. Sage.


Internet Studies & Research (ISR)

Focus

X

{all processes and practices of interdisciplinarity}


structural disciplinarity

Applied[practice]

Pure[theory]

epistemic core

social practices

Medicine

technologies

epistemology & metaphysics: ethics

Hard Soft

units of analysis

methodologies and tools

‘normal science’*

Thomas Kuhn, 1970


heterogeneity means boundary issuesheterogeneity means boundary issues

Applied[practice]

Pure[theory] epistemic core

social practices

MEDICINE

technologies

epistemology & metaphysics: ethics

units of analysis

methods & tools

‘normal science’*

•government policies

•public health

•changing medical/research laboratory practices

•gay activism & rights

•developing world needs

•geo-politics; immigation

•globalization

•etc.

AIDs

epistemic cores


borrowing; instrumental integrative

project/problem-based research (IDR - interdisciplinary research)

– transdisciplinarity (Jantsch, 1972, 1984; etc.)

– critical interdisciplinarity (cultural & rhetorical theories)– social theories: Bildung (Gibson & McHoul, 2001); social

identity approach (Lazenby, 2002)

– postdisciplinarity (Peters, (Ed.), 2001)

ISR - as process of interdisciplinarity


interdisciplinarity as continuum

(extrapolated from Klein, 1990)

instrumental (TOOLS)

integrative

cyberanalytics; online research methods

policy

{transdisciplines}

{post-disciplines}

new epistemologies?


inter-d and project*-based research

(*problem-based research, extrapolated from Klein, 1990)

instrumental (TOOLS)

integrativeonline research methods

{transdisciplines}

{post-disciplines}

new epistemologies?

project-based research

PDRpolicy


Chap. 4 - Research Methods

qualitative interviews - BNIM model* (biographic-narrative-interpretive) to

determine which processes of interdisciplinarity apply

(see next page)

results will be correlated in NUD*ist qualitative software (N6)

*(Wengraf, Qualitative Research Interviewing, 2001)


1. Clusters - their disciplinary affiliation (PhD) 2. Type of clusters (dense/dispersed) & shared areas:

contents of study? (no) citations? (possibly yes) methodological assumptions & theo. approaches? (yes) critical approaches? (possibly yes)

Mapping the ‘constituent’ disciplines of academics & their AoIR conference presentations, 1999-2003 (200-350 papers)

Quantitative (study #1)LOCUS of Internet Researchers:


academic’s disciplinary affiliation (PhD)

acad’s intro. to internet & internet-based research

academic’s current study & response to ISR:

themes of their study/research?

citations that influence their study?

methodological assumptions and/or approaches?

critical approaches? Mapping the thematics of practice & theory of ISR in relation to borrowing - instrumental; borrowing - integrative; or other structures (critical, rhetorical, post-disp.) or project-based research.

Qualitative (study #2)FOCUS of Internet Researchers:


Chap. 5 - Prelim. Findings

{all processes and practices of interdisciplinarity}

{all possible interdisciplines, transdisciplines, or fields of study}


knowledge seeking – epistemology –‘ways of knowing’methodology – how to find/locate

knowledge’

synthesis/criticism – ‘how can I analyze/place this knowledge in context’

‘how can I problematize this knowledge’ movement/development –

‘how can I communicate this knowledge to others’ AND/or ‘how can I test this knowledge in society’

cf. “Future studies” (Slaughter, 1996:)

disciplinary processes apply to interdisciplinarity


Academic tribes & territories (Becher, 2001)

Hard

Pure

Soft

Applied

Social Science*

Engineering, Accounting, DentistryPhysics

Humanities, Cultural & Media Studies

ISR . . .

*One interviewee: “they are just doing social science; they don’t understand information”


Ontological – Where do we start?Epistemological – How do we travel (maps, guides, etc.)?Axiological – How do we best treat ourselves & others?Rhetorical – How do we connect speaking and meaning?Methodological – How do we connect our research to others?


Early findings suggest that:

ISR is a field, not a discipline, that can be explained by concepts -

For some, not all scholars this may be at

ISR scholars may find some degree of as they negotiate their practices: study, teaching, research & policy within three domains (see previous page)

‘interdisciplinarity’

post-disciplinary level

commonality


Theories of inter+disciplinarity should explain epistemic work. . .

As Brown and Duguid* explain in a footnote, ‘by epistemic work we refer to the work people must do to acquire, confirm, deploy or modify what needs to be known in order for them to do what they do’ and this statement should be of interest to academics. In fact, epistemic work is what academics (arguably) do best.**

*Brown and Duguid (2002:98)** Rall, 2003

DNRall, Research Traditions, 19/09/04, 1 Locating internet research methods within five qualitative research traditions Denise N. Rall, PhD candidate,

Documents

research rall

language of research

internet research methods

internet studies research

research projects

research centers

research direction

process of research