For next week’s topic I chose a paper
that was published in the
Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication
(JCMC), which has an impact factor of 1.778. The
research paper titles “Social Media
as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information”
and was written by
Westerman, Spence and Van Der Heide. The purpose of the study was to examine
how information items available in social media impact perceptions of source
credibility.
The study
was conducted as an experiment with 181 US students as participants. In order
to test the three prior defined hypothesis a three-condition experiment was
designed which used mock Twitter page’s of the American Heart Association
for the participants to view. The main finding of the study is that the recency
of tweets does not directly impact the source credibility, but rather the relationship between recency and source
credibility is mediated by cognitive elaboration.
For benefits and
limitations of qualitative methods in general I will quote myself:
“Qualitative research follows an heuristic
approach, which means that it generates new or unforeseen knowledge in the
field of study. It takes views, opinions, certain behaviors into account which
cannot be generalized. Based on the findings the researches can formulate
hypothesis that can be tested with quantitative methods.”
“Its main
limitation though, lies within its inability to make any generalizations
because of its limited scope and sample.”
Benefits of
experimental research:
- Experiments are the only qualitative method by which cause and effect
can be established. By defining independent and dependent variables, it is
possible to precisely control variables and observe the effect that a variable
has on the other.
- Experiments can easily be replicated which can give more confidence
if the theory tested is valid.
- Experiments can also yield quantitative data which can be
statistically analyzed.
Limitations of
experimental research:
- Experiments as a research method can impose artificial situations
because of the requirements for random assignment, experiment control and
appropriate measures. Authentic conditions are generally not possible because
you cannot perfectly control all parameters.
- The behavior of the participants may be limited due to the controlled
situation.
- Experiments are based on methods and hypothesis without being able to
specify “why” something is the reason for something. In-depth interviews or
naturalistic observations could therefore provide richer data that allows us to
give a detailed explanation for the “why”.
Methodological
problems of the study and improvements:
By using an experimental approach you have to make sure that the
conditions of the experiment are as authentic and natural as possible. The
authors mainly failed on that because they used college students for the reason
that they are heavy social media users, but they haven’t considered that the topic
– heart disease – of the mock Twitter page lies not in their personal
relevance. The experiment therefore struggled upon artificiality which they
could have improved by using a more relevant topic.
Another problem of the study, which is again related to the topic, lies
within the fact that it does not inherently require recent updates. A topic which
needs fast updates, e.g. a crisis event would likely to be more relevant, what
of course means to manipulate a crisis that would be believable enough.
From
reading the paper I learned that an experiment is among interviews and
observations another method for qualitative research. The biggest challenge for
this kind of research is to conduct the experiment in an environment and under
conditions that are natural and authentic, in order to generate meaningful and
valid results.
What is a case study:
A case
study is a research method that tries to make present dynamics within single
settings understandable. It includes descriptions of events, persons or groups
and can involve different cases and multiple levels of analysis. This kind of research
approach is not limited to only one single research method, it strengths lies even
more in the combination of data collection through qualitative methods (interviews,
observations, etc.) and quantitative methods (e.g. questionnaires, surveys, etc.).
The aims of case studies can for that reason vary between providing a description
and testing or generating theories (Eisenhardt 1989: 534-536).
My second
paper “From
Diagnosis to Death: A Case Study of Coping With Breast Cancer as Seen Through
Online Discussion Group Messages” by Wen et al. was also published in the JCMC.
The researchers examined 202 messages posted by Darlene (their case study) in
relation to the medical timeline, in order to better understand the underlying
psychosocial reactions against the unfolding of medical events that announce
the disease progression. The main findings were that the most frequent
interaction theme was “building friendship” with peers through encouragement,
validation, appreciation and life sharing. For the reason of identifying
similarities with peers the medical progression was constantly described and
updated, whereas family issues were increasingly mentioned at the end of life.
Analyzing strengths and weaknesses of the paper
in relation to Eisenhardt’s table “Process of Building Theory from Case Study
Research”:
1. Getting
Started: The authors don’t particularly formulate a clear research question,
which might be a weakness according to Eisenhardt. They only provide the reader
with the relevant information that the purpose of the study was to identify the
patterns of online discussion group message themes in relation to the medical
timeline of one woman’s breast cancer journey.
2.
Selecting Cases: Cases should be selected on a theoretical background and not just
randomly. “Darlene” was chosen because of her high activity in a discussion
group where she regularly posted after her diagnosis until immediately before
her death. The unfortunate medical consequences and her rich online messages gave
an unique opportunity for the researchers, which I would count as a strength.
3. Crafting
Instruments and Protocols: Eisenhardt suggests multiple data collection methods
using qualitative and quantitative methods combined. The study examined 202
messages which were structured to particular themes by using a qualitative
content analysis. The results were then illustrated in diagrams by taking
quantitative data into account (in relation to the number of messages per
months) – which I would see as a strength.
4. Entering
the Field: A case study should overlap data collection and analysis, which the
authors clearly did as mentioned in the point before, and use flexible data
collection methods. Extracting messages from a discussion forum seems to be
easy and flexible enough to count #4
again as a strength of the study.
5.
Analyzing Data: Eisenhardt suggests the within-case analysis for data
analyzing, which is the in-depth exploration of a single case as a standalone
entity (Paterson 2010). Other cases should also be included to find cross-case
patterns. As the example case study is unique with the phenomenon under study
and the researchers derived information from reviewing literature and other
case studies, this can count again as a strength of the selected paper.
6. Shaping
Hypotheses: The paper tries to find evidence why certain relationships exist
which is a strength. The researchers validated the theoretical relationship
between expressive writing and emotionally charged events over time. Darlene
used e.g., unlike other users in discussion forums, a very expressive and
emotional writing style to receive emotional support caused by the events.
7.
Enfolding Literature: The paper takes as well conflicting as similar literature
into account.
8. Reaching
Closure: Theoretical saturation is the phase when sampling and analyzing data
is continued until no new data appears (Morse 2007), which is reached in this
particular study because the case study subject unfortunate died.
In
conclusion the selected paper seems to meet nearly every step in the process of
building theory from case study research as proposed by Eisenhardt. I’m looking
forward to read some other case studies presented by my colleagues in order to
be able to better evaluate the quality of my selected paper.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532-550.
Westerman, David; Spence, Patric R.; Von Der
Heide, Brandon
(2013): Social Media
as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information. In: Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication. Vol. 19 (1), 1-13.
Wen, Kuang-Yi et al. (2011): From
Diagnosis to Death: A Case Study of Coping With Breast Cancer as Seen Through
Online Discussion Group Messages. In: Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication. Vol. 16 (2), 331-361.
Paterson, Barbara L. (2010): Within-Case Analysis. In: Albert J. Mills & Gabrielle
Durepos & Elden Wiebe. Encyclopedia
of Case Study Research. SAGE. URL: http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/casestudy/n357.xml.
Morse, M. Janice (2007): Theoretical Saturation. In: Michael S.
Lewis-Beck & Alan Bryman & Tim Futing Liao. Encyclopedia of Social
Science Research Methods. SAGE. URL: http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/socialscience/n1011.xml
No comments:
Post a Comment