The growth of the Internet has led to an increase in researchers utilizing online methods. Online communities such as forums, blogs, and video platforms are particularly useful for research involving populations that are Internet savvy, seldom heard or discussing sensitive or illicit behavior. Drawing upon the experiences of four doctoral health students who are using online methods, this article discusses the value and benefits of conducting online research as well as the limitations and difficulties encountered. Consideration is given to the methodological and ethical implications of online research. Our own research leads us to reflect on participants’ perceptions of what is public, preserving anonymity and protecting participants from harm.
BarrattM. (2011, June). Discussing illicit drugs in public internet forums: Visibility, stigma, and pseudonymity. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Brisbane.
5.
BeerD. D. (2008). Social network(ing) sites . . . revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 516–529.
6.
BoydD. (2008). Why youth heart social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In BuckinghamD. (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7.
BridgesN. (2016). The faces of breastfeeding support: Experiences of mothers seeking breastfeeding support online. Breastfeeding Review, 24, 11–20.
8.
ElliottR.LangerR.BeckmanS. C. (2005). Sensitive research topics: Netnography revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8, 189–203.
9.
Ellis-BartonC. (2016). Ethical considerations in research participation virality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11, 281–285.
10.
EynonR.FryJ.SchroederR. (2008). The ethics of internet research. In FieldingN. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 23–41). London: Sage.
11.
GuestG.MacQueenK. M.NameyE. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage.
12.
HallettR. E.BarberK. (2014). Ethnographic research in a Cyber Era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43, 306–330.
KozinetsR. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72.
15.
MarkhamA.BuchananE. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
16.
McDermottE.RoenK. (2012). Youth on the virtual edge: Researching marginalized sexualities and genders online. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 560–570. doi:10.1177/1049732311425052
17.
NindM.WilesR.Bengry-HowellA.CrowG. (2012). Methodological innovation and research ethics: Forces in tension or forces in harmony?Qualitative Research, 13, 650–667.
PetrócziA.OcampoJ. A. V.ShahI.JamesR. A.NaughtonD. P.JenkinsonC.. . . TaylorG. (2015). Russian roulette with unlicensed fat-burner drug 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP): Evidence from a multidisciplinary study of the internet, bodybuilding supplements and DNP users. Substance Abuse: Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 10, 39.
20.
ReillyP. (2014). The “Battle of Stokes Croft” on YouTube: The development of an ethical stance for the study of online comments. London: Sage.
21.
RobertsL. (2015). Ethical issues in conducting qualitative research in online communities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12, 314–325.
22.
SekoY.KiddS. A.WiljerD.McKenzieK. J. (2015). On the creative edge: Exploring motivations for creating non-suicidal self-injury content online. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1334–1346.
StevensG.DonnellV. L. O.WilliamsL. (2015). Public domain or private data? Developing an ethical approach to social media research in an inter-disciplinary project. Educational Research & Evaluation, 12, 1–14.
26.
UhlsT. T.GreenfieldP. M. (2012). The value of fame: Preadolescent perceptions of popular media and their relationship to future aspirations. Developmental Psychology, 48, 315–326.
