Kokybiniai vartotojų elgsenos tyrimai internete: metodologiniai iššūkiai
Author(s) | ||
---|---|---|
Paunksnienė, Žaneta | ISM Vadybos ir ekonomikos universitetas | ISM Vadybos ir ekonomikos universitetas |
Banytė, Jūratė | Kauno technologijos universitetas |
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
Date Issued |
---|
2013 |
Tyrimo ribotumas – straipsnyje aptariamos tik konkretaus tyrimo kontekste iškilusios problemos, palyginimui neįtraukiama daugiau pavyzdžių bei analizuojami tik su pristatomu tyrimu susiję aspektai. Toks požiūris neleidžia daryti bendrinio pobūdžio apibendrinimų. Praktinė reikšmė – unikaliu straipsnio turiniu siekiama praplėsti analogiškas studijas realizuojančių mokslininkų sprendimų galimybes. Originalumas / vertingumas – straipsnyje pateikiama analizė pagrįsta realiu internete įgyvendintu tyrimu, dėl ko teorinė diskusija iliustruojama praktiniais sprendimais, originaliai papildančiais esamas metodologines gaires.
It is concluded that all the above-mentioned issues must be addressed individually to the research topic, object, aim, research problem and the specifics of the respondents. When deciding about the method of communication, it is important to assess which synchronous or asynchronous communication method is appropriate for the study participants. This decision relates to both computer literacy and psychological and personal factors of the researcher and a person involved. Asynchronous communication eliminates “rush” factor and solves organizational problems. Decision about communication synchronicity is closely associated with the interaction anonymity level. When the research question covers sensitive topics, on which the respondents may find it difficult to talk, it is recommended to choose the anonymous environment that encourages communication to be more open and free. In this case, it is likely preferable to use an asynchronous communication mode. On the basis of the analysis, it is concluded that qualitative research online population perception and evaluation differ from the reality research. The differences here relate to geographical uncertainty, cyberspace users’ sex, age, social status and other demographic characteristics intangibility. One way to solve the problem mentioned, especially in cases, where the investigation is carried out in the wider population, is to avoid studying as the unit of analysis individuals, and to choose unit of analysis as social interactions (e.g. unsuccessful purchases, in-store conflict, etc.), social artifacts (e.g. advertising) and so on. Ethical concerns analysis showed that although the online investigator is less constrained by the structure, space and time of communication, virtual environment complicates some ethical solutions (e.g. receiving informed consent). [...]