Çevrimiçi araştırmalar bilimsel midir?

Bu yazı bilimsel araştırma sürecinde internetin kullanılmasıyla ilgilidir. Teknolojinin gelişmesi ve internetin yaygınlaşmasıyla çevrimiçi araştırma sayısı hızla artmaktadır. Çevrimiçi araştırmalar zaman ve para açısından daha ekonomiktir, bazı avantajları vardır. Çevrimiçi araştırmalarda görülen seçim yanlılığı, gönüllü etkisi, sonuçların genellenmesi sorunu önemli dezavantajlarıdır. En önemli sorun örneklem seçimidir. Örneklem evreni temsil etmediği için dış geçerliliği yoktur. Bu durum örneklem hatası olarak belirtilmiştir. Etik sorunlar için temel ilkeler belirlenmemiştir. Bu yazıda çevrimiçi araştırmaların avantajları ve dezavantajları gözden geçirilmiştir. Örnekleme hatası önemli bir sorun olduğu ve çözümlenemediği için, çevrimiçi araştırmaların bilimsel yönteme uygun olduğunu söylemek güçtür.

Are online researches scientific?

This article is related to the use of internet in the scientific research process. The number of online researches have rapidly increased depending on technological developments and widely used internet. Online researches have some advantage, such as spending time, financial situation. Selection bias, volunteer effect, and generalization of results are important disadvantages of online researches. The most problem is the selection of sample. Because internet sample is not representative of the general population, it has not external validity. This situation is stated as ‘sampling error’. The basic principles for ethical problems are not determined. In this article, the advantages and disadvantages of online researches are reviewed. Because the sampling error is an important problem and not resolved yet, it is to say difficult that online researches are appropriate to scientific methods.

PDF

___

1. Şenel A. Biliyoruz ki bilim bir bilgi türüdür; ya bilgi nedir, onu da iyi biliyor muyuz? A Şenel (Ed.), 50 Soruda Bilim ve Bilimsel Yöntem. İstanbul: 7 Renk Basım Yayım, 2012.
2. Doğan O. Makale, Tez, Proje Yazmak. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık, 2017.
3. Hamzaoğlu O. Bilimsel Yöntem nedir; bilimsel yöntem ile ‘araştırma teknikleri’ arasındaki farklar nelerdir? A Şenel (Ed.), 50 Soruda Bilim ve Bilimsel Yöntem. İstanbul: 7 Renk Basım Yayım, 2012.
4. Yıldırım C. Bilim Felsefesi. On altıncı basım, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2012. 5. Doğan O. Psikiyatrik Epidemiyoloji. Sivas: Esform Ofset, 2011.
6. Doğan O, Gülmez H, Ketenoğlu C, Kılıçkap Z, Özbek H, Akyüz G, et al. Ruhsal Bozuklukların Epidemiyolojisi. Sivas: Dilek Matbaası, 1995.
7. Ford T. Introduction to epidemiological study designs. M Prince, R Stewart, T Ford, M Hotopf (Eds.), Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.85-95.
8. Crawford M. Epidemiology. C Freeman, P Tyrer (Eds.), Research Methods in Psychiatry, third ed., London, Gaskel, 2006, p.53-71.
9. Prince M. Cross-sectional surveys. M Prince, R Stewart, T Ford, M Hotopf (Eds.), Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.111-129.
10. Weber EJ, Hoo ZH. Why sample size estimates? Emerg Med J 2018; 35(12):755-756.
11. Meuli L, Dick F. Major sources of bias. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2018; 55(5):736.
12. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002; 4(2):e13.
13. Stewart R. Inference 1: chance, bias, and confounding. M Prince, R Stewart, T Ford, M Hotopf (Eds.), Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.221-237.
14. Fleming JA, Hsieh C. Introduction to epidemiologic research methods. MT Tsuang, M Tohen (Eds.), Textbook in Psychiatric Epidemiology, second ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2002, p.3-34.
15. Burke JD, Regier DA. Epidemiology of mental disorders. RL Hales, SC Yudofsky (Eds.), Synopsis of Psychiatry, Washington: American Psychiatric Press, 1996, pp.79-102.
16. Elovici Y, Fire M, Herzberg A, Shulman H. Ethical considerations when employing fake identities in online social networks for research. Sci Eng Ethics 2014; 20(4):1027-1043.
17. Lonsdale C, Hodge K, Rose EA. Pixels vs. paper: Comparing online and traditional survey methods in sport psychology. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2006; 28:100-108.
18. Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Homa K, Weinstein JN. Computerized questionnaires and the quality of survey data. Spine 2002; 27:1797-1801.
19. Shah KN, Hofmann MR, Schwarzkopf R, Pourmand D, Bhatia NN, Rafijah G, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures: How do digital tablets stack up to paper forms? A randomized, controlled study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2016; 45(7):E451-E457.
20. Tuten TL. Electronic methods of collecting survey data: A review of “e-research”. Electronic Data Collection ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht 97, 1997.
21. Fitzgerald DJ, Hockey R, Jones M, Mishra G, Waller M, Dobson A. Use of online or paper surveys by Australian women: longitudinal study of users, devices, and cohort retention. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21(3):e10672.
22. Barentsz MW, Wessels H, van Diest PJ, Pijnappel RM, Haaring C, van der Pol CC, et al. Tablet, webbased, or paper questionnaires for measuring anxiety in patients suspected of breast cancer: patients' preferences and quality of collected data. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16(10):e239.
23. Mlikotic R, Parker B, Rajapakshe R. Assessing the effects of participant preference and demographics in the usage of Web-based survey questionnaires by women attending screening mammography in British Columbia. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18(3):e70.
24. Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MAK, Millennium Cohort Study Team. When epidemiology meets the internet: Web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166(11):1345-1354.
25. Loban A, Mandefield L, Hind D, Bradburn M. A randomized trial found online questionnaires supplemented by postal reminders generated a cost-effective and generalizable sample but don't forget the reminders. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 92:116-125.
26. Hagan TL, Belcher SM, Donovan HS. Mind the Mode: Differences in paper vs. Web-based survey modes among women with cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 54(3):368-375.
27. Levine D, Madsen A, Wright E, Barar E, Santelli J, Bull S. Formative research on my space: online methods to engage hard-to-reach populations. J Health Commun 2011; 16(4):448-454.
28. Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods 2012; 44:1-23.
29. Birnbaum MH, Reips UD. Behavioral Research and Data Collection via the Internet. Erlbaum, 2005, pp.471-492.
30. Bartneck C, Duenser A, Moltchanova E, Zawieska K. Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment. PLoS One 2015; 10(4):e0121595.
31. Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. New York: Springer, 2017.