Validity, Reliability, and the Case for Participant-Centered Research: Reflections on a Multi-Platform Social Media Study

References

• American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2013). Academic freedom and electronic communications. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-electronic-communications-2014
   Google Scholar
• Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Linked. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
   Google Scholar
• Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, San Jose, USA, 17–20 May. (pp. 361–362). Palo Alto, USA, AAAI.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D. (2010, March). Making sense of privacy and publicity. Paper presented at SXSW, Austin, USA. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2011, September). Six provocations for big data. Paper presented at A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, Oxford, UK. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/paper=1926431
   Google Scholar
• Bukvova, H. (2012). A holistic approach to the analysis of online profiles. Internet Research, 22(3), 340–360. doi:10.1108/10662241211235680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cann, A. J., Dimitriou, K., & Hooley, T. (2011). Social media: A guide for researchers. London, UK: Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/social_media_guide_for_screen_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Data Protection Act 1998. (1998). London, UK: Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Dehaye, P.-O. (2017). Cambridge Analytica demonstrably non-compliant with data protection law. PersonalData.IO. Retrieved from https://medium.com/personaldata-io/cambridge-analytica-demonstrably-non-compliant-with-data-protection-law-95ec5712b61
   Google Scholar
• Dominguez, S., & Hollstein, B. (2014). Mixed methods social networks research: Design and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eynon, R., Fry, J., & Schroeder, R. (2008). The ethics of Internet research. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 23–41). London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Fiesler, C., Lampe, C., & Bruckman, A. S. (2016). Reality and perception of copyright Terms of Service for online content creation. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co-operative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, USA, 27 February–2 March (pp. 1450–1461). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D., McDonald, D. W., Brooks, A. L., & Churchill, E. F. (2010, February). Terms of service, ethics, and bias: Tapping the social web for CSCW research. Panel discussion at Conference on Computer Supported Co-operative Work & Social Computing. Savannah, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606.
   Google Scholar
• González-Bailón, S., Wang, N., Rivero, A., & Borge-Holthoefer, J. (2014). Assessing the bias in samples of large online networks. Social Networks, 38, 16–27. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing research in the real world (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation research. London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, S. A. (2012). Build your own interactive network. Interactive Visualizations blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/vis/?p=191
   Google Scholar
• Halford, S., Weal, M., Tinati, R., Carr, L., & Pope, C. (2016, October). Digital data infrastructures: Interrogating the social media data pipeline. Paper presented at AoIR 2016: The 17th Annual Meeting of the Association of Internet Researchers, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from https://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/1381
   Google Scholar
• Hall, M., Mazarakis, A., Peters, I., Chorley, M., Jens-Erik Mai, J.-E., Caton, S., & Strohmaier, M. (2016, May). Following user pathways: Using cross platform and mixed methods analysis in social media studies. Workshop at CHI 16, San Jose, USA. Retrieved from http://jenserikmai.info/Papers/2016_following.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (1987). Some notes on the terms ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 73–81. doi:10.1080/0141192870130107
   Google Scholar
• Hawksey, M. (2017, March). Measuring social media impact: Google Analytics and Twitter. Presentation at the University of Oxford, UK. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/mhawksey/measuring-social-media-impact-google-analytics-and-twitter
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2014). Impact factor 2.0: Applying social network analysis to scientific impact assessment. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1576–1585), Big Island, Hawaii. IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775. doi:10.1002/asi.23423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, A., Starbird, K., Leavitt, A., Keegan, B., & Semaan, B. (2016, May). Information movement across social media platforms during crisis events. Paper presented at ‘Following user pathways: Using cross platform and mixed methods analysis in social media studies’, workshop at CHI 16, San Jose, USA. Retrieved from http://www.amandaleehughes.com/MultiSMPlatformWorkshop_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). doi:10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, K. (2017) Understanding the structure and role of academics’ ego-networks on social networking sites. ( PhD thesis). The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Krotoski, A. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Research ethics in online communities. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Lunden, I. (2014) LinkedIn is quietly retiring network visualization tool InMaps. TechCrunch website. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/linkedin-is-quietly-retiring-network-visualization-tool-inmaps/
   Google Scholar
• Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision making and internet research, Version 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied research methods (pp. 69–100). London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Molina, J. L., Maya-Jariego, I., & McCarty, C. (2014). Giving meaning to social networks: Methodology for conducting and analyzing interviews based on personal network visualisations. In S. Dominguez & B. Hollstein (Eds.), Mixed methods social networks research: Design and applications (pp. 305–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, P., & &Jansen, J. (2016, May). The changing nature of viewership: Formality of social media conversations. Paper presented at ‘Following user pathways: Using cross platform and mixed methods analysis in social media studies’, workshop at CHI 16, San Jose, USA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305171094_The_Changing_Nature_of_Viewership_Formality_of_Social_Media_Conversations
   Google Scholar
• Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2012). Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the age of digital social networks. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Philips Honda, L. (2015). Motivations for participation in the YouTube-based “It Gets Better Project”. Proceedings of the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2033–2042). January 5–8, Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Sandvig, C., & Karahalios, K. (2016). Most of what you do online is illegal. Let’s end the absurdity. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/cfaa-online-law-illegal-discrimination
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/mapping-twitter-topic-networks-from-polarized-crowds-to-community-clusters/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. A., Shneiderman, B., Milic-Frayling, N., Rorigues, E., Barash, V., Dunne, C., … Gleave, E. (2009). Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL. Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 255–264). June 25–27, Pennsylvania, USA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Spiliotopoulos, T., & Oakley, I. (2016, May). Post or tweet: Lessons from a study of Facebook and Twitter usage. Paper presented at ‘Following user pathways: Using cross platform and mixed methods analysis in social media studies’, workshop at CHI 16, San Jose, USA. Retrieved from http://tasos-spiliotopoulos.com/publications_assets/CHI2016-FUP-Spiliotopoulos-PostOrTweet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stenhouse, L. (1985). Case study methods. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (1st ed., pp. 61–66). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. doi:10.1177/2345678906292430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gilder Cooke, S. (2011). Walls have eyes: How researchers are studying you on Facebook. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2099409,00.html
   Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512, 126–129. doi:10.1038/512126a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, R. (2002). Case study, case records and multimedia. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(1), 109–127. doi:10.1080/03057640220116463
   Google Scholar
• Weller, K., & Kinder-Kurlanda, K. (2016). A manifesto for data sharing in social media Research. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 166–172). May 22–25, Hannover, Germany: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1–14.
   Google Scholar