Opportunities and Constraints in Disseminating Qualitative Research in Web 2.0 Virtual Environments

Abstract

The Web 2.0 digital environment is revolutionizing how users communicate and relate to each other, and how information is shared, created, and recreated within user communities. The social media technologies in the Web 2.0 digital ecosystem are fundamentally changing the opportunities and dangers in disseminating qualitative health research. The social changes influenced by digital innovations shift dissemination from passive consumption to user-centered, apomediated cooperative approaches, the features of which are underutilized by many qualitative researchers. We identify opportunities new digital media presents for knowledge dissemination activities including access to wider audiences with few gatekeeper constraints, new perspectives, and symbiotic relationships between researchers and users. We also address some of the challenges in embracing these technologies including lack of control, potential for unethical co-optation of work, and cyberbullying. Finally, we offer solutions to enhance research dissemination in sustainable, ethical, and effective strategies.

Keywords

Internet knowledge dissemination research,online technology,use in research qualitative

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acord

S. K.

Harley

(2013). Credit, time, and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly work using Web 2.0. New Media & Society, 15, 379–397.

American Medical Association. (2012). AMA policy: Professionalism in the use of social media. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion9124.page

Andersen

N. B.

Söderqvist

(2012). Social media and public health research (Working paper/Technical report). Copenhagen, Denmark: Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen. Retrieved from http://www.museion.ku.dk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Social-Media-and-Public-Health-Research.pdf

Bal

A. S.

Archer-Brown

Robson

Hall

D. E.

(2013). Do good, goes bad, gets ugly: Kony 2012. Journal of Public Affairs, 13, 202–208.

Bernhardt

J. M.

Mays

Kreuter

M. W.

(2011). Dissemination 2.0: Closing the gap between knowledge and practice with new media and marketing. Journal of Health Communications, 16(Suppl. 1), 32–44.

Bik

Goldstein

(2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535

Bornkessel

Furberg

Lefebvre

R. C.

(2014). Social media: Opportunities for quality improvement and lessons for providers—A networked model for patient-centered care through digital engagement. Current Cardiology Reports, 7, 1–10.

Bottorff

J. L.

Struik

L. L.

Bissell

L. J. L.

Graham

Stevens

Richardson

C. G.

(2014). A social media approach to inform youth about breast cancer and smoking: An exploratory descriptive study. Collegian, 21, 159–168.

Boydell

K. M.

Gladstone

B. M.

Volpe

Allemang

Stasiulis

(2012). The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Article 32. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1711

10.

Brossard

(2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096–14101.

11.

Bruns

(2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

12.

Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Glossary of knowledge exchange terms. Retrieved from http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/PublicationsAndResources/ResourcesAndTools/GlossaryKnowledgeExchange.aspx

13.

Cann

Dimitriou

Hooley

(2011). Social media: A guide for researchers. Leicester, UK: International Centre for Guidance Studies, Research Information Network, University of Leicester. Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/social-media-guide-researchers

14.

Carr

N. C.

(2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton.

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). CDC’s guide to writing for social media. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/socialmedia/tools/guidelines/pdf/GuidetoWritingforSocialMedia.pdf

16.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Clear Communication Index. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/clearcommunicationindex/index.html

17.

Chou

W. Y. S.

Hunt

Folkers

Augustson

(2011). Cancer survivorship in the age of YouTube and social media: A narrative analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), 108–116.

18.

Clayman

M. L.

Manganello

J. A.

Viswanath

Hesse

B. W.

Arora

N. K.

(2010). Providing health messages to Hispanics/Latinos: Understanding the importance of language, trust in health information sources, and media use. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 252–263. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.522697

19.

Colson

(2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12, 889–902.

20.

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. (2010). Professionalism in the use of social media (Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs). Chicago: American Medical Association. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/code-medical-ethics/9124a.pdf

21.

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. (2011). Professionalism in the use of social media: AMA code of medical ethics, Opinion 9.124. Chicago: American Medical Association. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion9124.page

22.

Eysenbach

(2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

(Eds.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning) (pp. 123–154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/9906/6/Eysenbach2007.pdf

23.

Facebook. (2014). Quarterly earnings slides: Facebook. Retrieved from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-NJ5DZ/3349478089x0x770377/abc6b6d4-df03-44e1-bb4d-7877f01c41e0/FB%20Q2

24.

Fielding

N. G.

(2012). The diverse worlds and research practices of qualitative software. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(2), Article 13. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1202124

25.

Ford

(2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 4, 311–326.

26.

Gadanidis

Borba

(2013). New media and research dissemination: The case of performing mathematics education research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22, 25–38.

27.

Gattone

C. F.

(2012). The social scientist as public intellectual in an age of mass media. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Sociology, 25, 175–186.

28.

Goldstein

Briggs

Oleynik

Cullen

Jones

Newman

Narva

(2013). Using digital media to promote kidney disease education. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease, 20, 364–369.

29.

Gonzalez de Armas

Archidald

Scott

S. D.

(2014). Developing an Inventory of Ongoing/Unpublished Arts and Narrative-Based Approaches as Knowledge Translation Strategies in Healthcare (Unpublished BScN Honor Research Project Report, Faculty of Nursing, BScN Honors Program, University of Alberta, Edmonton). Retrieved from http://www.echo.ualberta.ca/ECHOResearch/UndergraduateStudentResearch/NarrativeandArtsKTProjectInventory.aspx

30.

Grajales

F. J.

III Sheps

Novak-Lauscher

Eysenbach

(2014). Social media: A review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), e13.

31.

Gruzd

Goertzen

Mai

(2012). Survey results highlights: Trends in scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination in the age of social media (Social Media Lab Report). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University.

32.

Hammond

S. P.

Cooper

N. J.

(2011). Participant information clips: A role for digital video technologies to recruit, inform and debrief research participants and disseminate research findings. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14, 259–270.

33.

Hanson

Thackeray

Barnes

Neiger

McIntyre

(2008). Integrating Web 2.0 in health education preparation and practice. American Journal of Health Education, 39, 157–166.

34.

Harley

Acord

S. K.

Earl-Novell

Lawrence

King

C. J.

(2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.

35.

Henderson

Johnson

N. F.

Auld

(2013). Silences of ethical practice: Dilemmas for researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 19, 546–560.

36.

Hermida

(2012). Tweets and truth. Journalism Practice, 6, 659–668.

37.

Houghton

J. W.

Steel

Henty

(2004). Research practices and scholarly communication in the digital environment. Learned Publishing, 17, 231–249.

38.

Internet Live Stats. (2014). Internet users. Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/

39.

Jenkins

Deuze

(2008). Convergence. The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 14, 5–12.

40.

Joint Information System Committee, Higher Education Funding Council. (2012). Researchers of tomorrow: The research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students. London: Higher Education Funding Council. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2012/Researchers-of-Tomorrow.pdf

41.

Keen

Todres

(2007). Strategies for disseminating qualitative research findings: Three exemplars. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), Article 17. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0703174

42.

Kolmes

(2012). Social media in the future of professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(6), 606–612.

43.

Kolmes

Taube

D. O.

(Producer). (2011). Summary of client-therapist encounters on the web: The client experience. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved from http://drkkolmes.com/research/

44.

Koskan

Klasko

Davis

S. N.

Gwede

C. K.

Wells

K. J.

Kumar

. . . Meade

C. D.

(2014). Use and taxonomy of social media in cancer-related research: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 104(7), e20-e37.

45.

Kozinets

R. V.

(2012). Marketing netnography: Prom/ot(ulgat)ing a new research method. Methodological Innovations Online, 7(1), 37–45.Retrieved from http://www.methodologicalinnovations.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/4.-Kozinetsi-2012.pdf

46.

Langford

Litts

Pearson

J. L.

(2013). Using science to improve communications about suicide among military and veteran populations: Looking for a few good messages. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 31–38.

47.

Lau

A. Y. S.

Gabarron

Fernandez-Luque

Armayones

(2012). Social media in health—What are the safety concerns for health consumers? Health Information Management Journal, 41(2), 30–35.

48.

Lewis

S. C.

(2012). The tension between professional control and open participation. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 836–866.

49.

Lupton

(2014). “Feeling better connected”: Academics’ use of social media. Canberra: New & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au/faculties/arts-design/attachments/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf

50.

Martland

Rothbaum

(2007). The Internet. In Welch-Ross

M. K.

Fasig

L. G.

(Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science (pp. 217–230). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

51.

McElhinney

Cheater

F. M.

Kidd

(2014). Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70, 1267–1275.

52.

Neiger

B. L.

Thackeray

Burton

S. H.

Giraud-Carrier

C. G.

Fagen

M. C.

(2013). Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promotion Practice, 14, 157–162.

53.

Paek

H.-J.

Kim

Hove

Huh

J. Y.

(2014). Reduced harm or another gateway to smoking? Source, message, and information characteristics of e-cigarette videos on YouTube. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 545–560.

54.

Pfeiffer

C. D.

(2013). Giving adolescents a voice? Using videos to represent reproductive health realities of adolescents in Tanzania. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3), Article 18. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1303189

55.

Pink

(2007). Doing visual ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

56.

Prislin

Boyle

S. M.

Davenport

Farley

Jacobs

Michalak

. . . Xu

(2011). On being influenced while trying to persuade. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 51–58.

57.

Qvortrup

(2006). Understanding new digital media: Medium theory or complexity theory? European Journal of Communication, 21, 345–356.

58.

Ressler

P. K.

Bradshaw

Y. S.

Gualtieri

Chui

K. K. H.

(2012). Communicating the experience of chronic pain and illness through blogging. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5), e143.

59.

Rheingold

(2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

60.

Scanlon

(2014). Scholarship in the digital age: Open educational resources, publication and public engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 12–23.

61.

Schneider

(2012). Participatory action research, mental health service user research, and the Hearing (our) Voices projects. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 152-165.

62.

Shearer

Birdsall

W. F.

(2005). A researcher’s research agenda for scholarly communication in Canada. New Review of Information Networking, 11, 99–108.

63.

Stockley

Beyer

Hutchinson

DeLugt

Chin

Versnel

Munby

(2009). Using interactive technology to disseminate research findings to a diverse population. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(1), Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/513/243

64.

Terras

(2012). The impact of social media on the dissemination of research: Results of an experiment. Journal of Digital Humanities, 1(3), Article 3. Retrieved from http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-3/the-impact-of-social-media-on-the-dissemination-of-research-by-melissa-terras/

65.

Tobey

L. N.

Manore

M. M.

(2014). Social media and nutrition education: The food hero experience. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46, 128–133.

66.

Twitter. (n.d). Available from https://twitter.com/

67.

Vance

Howe

Dellavalle

R. P.

(2009). Social Internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatologic Clinics, 27, 133–136.

68.

Wei

(2009). The state of new media technology research in China: A review and critique. Asian Journal of Communication, 19, 116–127.

69.

Weigold

Treise

Rausch

(2007). Science communication scholarship: Themes and future directions. In Welch-Ross

M. K.

Fasig

L. G.

(Eds.), Handbook on communicating and disseminating behavioral science (pp. 33–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

70.

Wilson

R. M.

Petticrew

Calnan

M. W.

Nazareth

(2010). Disseminating findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science, 5, Article 91. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/91

71.

Yzer

M. C.

Southwell

B. G.

(2008). New communication technologies, old questions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 8–20.

72.

Zivkovic

(2008). The future of the scientific paper. Journal of Science Communication, 7(2), 1–3. Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/02/Jcom0702%282008%29C01/Jcom0702%282008%29C02/Jcom0702%282008%29C02.pdf