The Future Is Now: Considerations of Conducting Qualitative Research in Digital Spaces

Is The Digital Different?

Communication of research findings and interpretations to traditional forms of dissemination have shifted “the discourses that define what it means to be an educator, student, or education researcher” (Voithofer, 2005, p. 10). In regards to qualitative research, it is no surprise, then, that many researchers are navigating new research realms within the digital, including methods, data representations, and what it means to participate versus observe (Kozinets, 2010), p. 5). Yet, while there are many similarities that are regularly noted between conducting research face-to-face versus conducting research in digital spaces, the differences between the two are just as important to note and create unique considerations.

Markham (2013) points out that inquiry today “is not only about simplifying and narrowing, but generating layers upon layers of information units that influence our interpretations” (p. 74). Generating layers of interpretation is especially done easily and quickly in the digital sphere when one considers how some of these outcomes seem new, such as through remixing; however, “elements are being combined [that] are borrowed from other sources” (Markham, 2013, p. 75). This point is needed when we begin to consider how the digital sphere can be what Arora (2012) calls a “cyber-playground” for researchers in which we take a lot from the physical world that we can “learn, adopt, and transfer” into the online sphere (p. 612). Thus, there are still ways in which digital research is like face-to-face research because no matter the location, the researcher is still using methods pulled from traditional notions of what it means to conduct qualitative research.

Yet, there are important differences to consider when researching in digital spaces as Kozinets (2010) notes. His focus centers on ethnography and netnography—“a specialized from of ethnography adapted to the unique computer-mediated contingencies of today’s social worlds” (p. 1). Specifically, he feels the biggest differences between the contexts of face-to-face versus digital social interactions for researchers comes down to four key areas: “adaptation to various technological media; participation under optional conditions of anonymity; vastly enhanced cultural accessibility, and automatic archiving of exchanges” (p. 72).

In order to understand the differences that Kozinets (2010) offered researchers, one can consider Hine’s (2015) “E³ Internet.” Hine (2015) coined the E³ Internet as embedded, embodied, and everyday (p. 32). Essentially Hine (2015) suggests that the E³ Internet provides a way to develop an ethnographic strategy for beginning to understand the challenges and affordances when one applies ethnographic principles to the digital sphere (p. 32). She says: “an ethnographer, even in the Internet age, continues to develop a distinctive form of knowledge by being, doing, learning, and practicing, and by a close association with those who do so in the course of their everyday lives” (p. 21). This example further supports the notion that while qualitative research in digital spaces is similar to research of the past, again, there are still significant considerations that one must include without losing the focus on the knowledge one hopes to gather. With these considerations in mind, it is necessary to examine some of the affordances, constraints, and ethical considerations involved with conducting digital qualitative research.