THE COMMUNITY CASE STUDY:

A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

FOR SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN

EPARTICIPATION

NOKOBIT 22. November 2011 Marius Rohde Johannessen

Agenda

• Kontekst og bakgrunn

• Community som analyseenhet

• Ulike metoder, bruk og erfaringer

smerte

Bakgrunn: Hvorfor skrive om metode?

• Både sosiale medier og eDemokrati er nye områder, med få metodiske retningslinjer.

• Behov for å utforske hvor nyttig ulike metoder er

• Fokus: «Verktøykasse» - Ulike metoder og hvilken nytte de har hatt

• Motivasjon: Hjelpe master- og PhD-studenter med metodiske utfordringer gjennom å vise eksempler fra eget arbeid.

Kontekst: Politisk bruk av sosiale medier

• Lav valgdeltakelse og synkende politisk interesse

• Mulig løsning: Etablere nye kommunikasjonskanaler i digitale medier

• (se bl.a. maktutredn., st. meld 17, 19, 32. eNorge 2009, eKommune2012)

• Forsøk på eDemokrati har ofte feilet bl.a. pga få brukere

• Sosiale medier har veldig mange brukere, mange politisk engasjert.

• RQ: Hvordan bidrar politisk kommunikasjon I sosiale medier til

demokratiet/demokratisk debatt?

• interessenter, sjangere, kommunikasjonsbehov, teknologiens egenskaper

• Case: Valgkamp 2009, Mitt Arbeiderparti, Arendal kommune, Lyngdal kommune

«Community» som analytisk enhet

• Typisk IS: fokus på organisasjon

• Alternativ tilnærming: Fokus på communities

• Enklere å utforske nettverkseffekter av sosiale medier

• Hvem deltar, hvorfor, hvor og hvordan uavhengig av organisatorisk

tilknytning

• Hva er «community»?

• Mennesker som deltar på en felles arena, fysisk/virtuell møteplass

• Relasjoner mellom mennesker: Deltakere tiltaler hverandre med navn, man

har et sett felles opplevelser/bakgrunn, felles målsetninger for deltakelse

• Gemeinschaft: Organisk vekst, evolusjon fra felles verdier og interesser

• Gesellschaft: Konstruerte samfunn. Nasjonalstater, organisasjoner o.l.

Etnografiske teknikker

• Gir forskeren dypere innsikt i fenomenet som studeres, ved at man blir en aktiv deltaker i mediet.

• Bidrar til at beskrivelsen ikke blir overfladisk, men at man forstår de underliggende kulturelle strømmene i det man undersøker, og ser ting fra deltakernes perspektiv (og kanskje legger igjen noen fordommer hjemme?)

• Aktiviteter:

• Bruker og bidragsyter i mange ulike sosiale medier

• Samfunns- og akademisk blogging

• Deltakende observatør i de ulike foraene som er undersøkt

• Generelt opptatt av å ta del i den nettbaserte samfunnsdebatten på mange

ulike vis.

Metoder

Research method

Description Use

Interviews The interview is the most common and versatile method in qualitative research, providing access to people’s attitudes, purposes and beliefs. Conducting interviews in a semi-structured manner provides richer data (Myers & Newman, 2007)

Interviews are used to collect the opinions of participants, as well as for clarification of issues that arise during Genre and network analyses.

Content&Genre analysis

Genres can act as a tool for studying the role of communication in social processes (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). Combined with general content analysis, we can identify how people communicate in social media.

Content and Genre analysis are used in tandem to uncover the communication genres being used in social media. This provides valuable insights about the (non-/) existence of public spheres online.

Social network analysis (SNA)

SNA helps us understand individual behaviour and social relationships in online communities, by identifying social roles and structures, as well as dissemination patterns (Hansen et al, 2009)

SNA is used mainly for exploratory purposes, to identify discussions and topics of interest. But also to examine if and how information spreads from one community to another.

(Participant-) Observation

Participant observation means that the observer participates in the activities of those being studied, openly as a researcher or covert. The objective is to observe the things that happen, people’s reactions and actions, and listening to what people say and how they say it (Becker & Geer, 1957)

Observation is conducted both on- and offline, and offers valuable additional insights such as the reactions of one stakeholder group to the opinion of another. The degree of participation varies between different observation sessions. For example, observers are not allowed to speak during municipal council meetings.

Stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder analysis helps us identify, categorise and sort different stakeholder groups based on their power, urgency and legitimacy in the case (Mitchell et al, 1997)

Stakeholder analysis is used to identify panels in the Delphi study, as well as to examine relations between different stakeholders in the activist case.

Delphi method

The Delphi method is a technique used to collect and sort data from a panel of experts. The objective is to create a ranked list of issues, that the participants agree on (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004)

The Delphi method is used to collect and sort stakeholder groups’ communication needs in relation to eParticipation, and these findings will be compared to how the various channels are actually being used

Erfaring fra de ulike metodeneResearch methods Positive Negative

Interviews Gives direct access to rich data. Expressions, tone of voice etc captured in interviews. Transcribing interviews adds an extra round of analysis. Can ask interviewee about other possible candidates

Experienced some interpretation issues, especially when there is a big gap between the interviewer and interviewee’s points of reference and “subjective worlds”. Difficult to gain access, as interviews takes time.

Content&Genre analysis Data collection is quick and easy, as the data can be copied directly from the various social media examined. Provides insights into how people communicate, as opposed to how they say they communicate. Practitioners quickly understand the method and its results.

Interpretation of genres, how to categorise them and what different genres mean for communication, can be difficult. However, this is no less true of other qualitative research methods.

Social network analysis (SNA) Makes visible who is talking to whom, shows the importance of ties between different communities (and if they are there in the specific community), and shows which topics are being debated the most.

Narrowing the scope, of the analysis and making sure you have captured as much data as possible within the chosen scope. It is not always transparent who is talking to whom.

(Participant-) Observation Provides rich insights into how people function in groups, their ways of acting etc.

Requires a lot of practice and effort on the researcher. Not always suitable for short cases

Stakeholder analysis Makes visible the connections between people, in a different way than SNA. Allows you to analyse based on different stakeholders’ perspectives. Helps identify the most important groups within a given community.

Ensuring that you captured the correct stakeholder groups. There is always the chance that you have left someone out, or missed some connections.

Delphi method Tried and tested method for consensus-making and policy issue-gathering. Provides the researcher with a list of issues or factors, enriched by the descriptions and explanations of participants.

Participant recruitment and retention. Delphi can be time-consuming, and it is difficult to retain the interests of the participants. Provides a lot of data, but not the initimacy you get from interviews.

Oppsummering

• eDemokrati og sosiale medier er forholdsvis nye fenomener, med dertil hørende metodiske utfordringer

• Casestudium med «community» som analytisk enhet er en av mange mulige tilnærminger

• Når man gjør studier av nettbefolkningen bør man bruke tid på å sette seg inn i dennes kultur

• Det finnes en rekke metoder man kan bruke, alle med ulike styrker og svakheter

• Artikkelen er en gjennomgang av min spesifikke tilnærming, og kan forhåpentligvis være til inspirasjon for andre studenter