MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748679506 · doi:10.29173/cjs29343

Salmons, Janet E., Doing Qualitative Research Online.

2017· article· en· W2748679506 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tracy X. Karner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyQualitative researchMedia studiesAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A s the internet becomes more integral to all aspects of our lives, so- cial scientists continue to grapple with its potential for our research endeavors.While many senior scholars and practitioners learned to do research without the internet or even without computers, students and new colleagues come to research as digital natives who are often quite comfortable with online settings and activities.Salmons, an independent researcher, writer and consultant who specializes in online communities, entrepreneurship and leadership in the digital age, is attempting to bridge the gap between qualitative methods before and after the internet.Her previous books, Online Interviews in Real Time (Sage, 2010), Cases in Online Interview Research (Sage, 2012) and Qualitative Online Interviews (Sage, 2015), demonstrate her sustained interest in the possibilities of our new digital age.In Doing Qualitative Research Online, Salmons carefully outlines the questions and details researchers need to attend to in designing their online research [e.g., aligning purpose and design, choice of extant, elicited, and enacted data, selecting ITC, addressing ethical issues, sampling, etc.].She utilizes her concept of "Qualitative e-Research Framework" (Salmon 2012) to organize the eleven chapters and provide a 'road map' throughout the text.Salmon provides an overview of the methodologies, methods and ethics for doing qualitative research online, and explores three types of online data collection-extant, elicited, and enacted.Early on, she argues that researches should not just "repurpose real-world data collection techniques" for a virtual world, but should instead employ digital approaches that make use of "text-based exchanges (messaging, email), multi-channel meeting spaces (e.g.Adobe Connect, WebEx), videoconferencing (full video with multiple participants) or video calls (e.g.Skype, Google Chat) or immersive virtual worlds (e.g.Second Life, games) [which] are fundamentally different from real-world, co-located interviews and observations" (xiii).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.521
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207