İNTERNET ARAŞTIRMALARINDA YÖNTEM SORUNU

İnternetin geniş kitlelerce kullanılmaya başladığı 2000’li yıllardan itibaren, internet çalışmalarındaki yöntem sorunu araştırmacıların ilgisini daha fazla çekmeye başlamıştır. Bu ilgi, özellikle web 2.0 dönemi ve sosyal medya araçlarıyla birlikte daha da artmıştır. Disiplinlerarası çalışmaların odağı olan internet sunduğu sanal yöntemlerle, sosyal bilimcilerin araştırmalarına konu olmaya devam etmektedir.Bazı araştırmacılara göre, internet zamanında sosyal bilimler araştırması yapmak bazı riskleri de beraberinde getirmektedir. İnternet ortamında sürekli değişen verilerle araştırma yapmak, çoğu zaman ceteris paribus[1] koşulunu sağlamayı imkansız kılmaktadır. Bu da yapılan araştırmaların yöntemsel olarak geçerliliği sorununu gündeme getirmektedir. Diğer taraftan, geleneksel medyaya kıyasla, internet üzerinden veri toplamanın kolaylığı ve ucuzluğu ve de daha geniş bir örnekleme ulaşabilme imkanı, internetin çalışma alanı olarak ortaya koyduğu artılar olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Gerek iletişim araştırmaları, gerek pazar araştırmaları gerekse sosyolojik araştırmalar bakımından farklı eğilimlerle ele alınan internet araştırmalarında, amaç ne olursa olsun, bazı yöntem sorunları yaşanabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, web 1.0 döneminden web 2.0 dönemine geçişte, internet tabanlı veri toplama yöntemleri ve sosyal medyayı temel alan araştırmaların sunduğu yöntemler açıklanarak uygulamaya ilişkin eksikliklere değinilecektir. Niceliksel ve niteliksel araştırma yöntemlerinin, web 2.0 araçlarını araştırırken nasıl uygulanabileceği ve bu uygulamaların eksiklerinin giderilmesi için neler yapılabileceği tartışılacaktır. Böylelikle farklı alanlarda yapılan ve farklı yöntemleri kullanan çalışmalar üzerinden yapılan literatür taraması ile yöntem sorunları ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır. [1] Diğer bütün koşullar aynı iken.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

internet; web 2.0; yöntembilim; nitel ve nicel araştırma

-

The question of methodology in internet studies has started to attract the attention of researchers since this tool began to be used widely since the 2000s. This interest, especially in the period of web 2.0 and social media tools has increased more and more. Internet, being the focus of interdisciplinary studies and which is offering virtual methods, continues to be a subject for social scientist. According to some researchers, Internet also brings some risks to perform research in the social sciences.The ever-changing Internet environment and data, make it impossible to secure ceteris paribus condition. This also raises the question of the validity of the research methodology. On the other hand the ease and cheapness of data collection on the internet compared to traditional media, as well as the opportunity to reach a wider sampling via Internet appear to be the positive aspects of the study area. In this study, internet based data collection methods with the transition from the web 1.0 era to web 2.0, and research methods based on social media are explained. The shortcomings of these applications will be discussed. How quantitative and qualitative research methods can be applied to investigate web 2.0 tools and what can be done to remedy the deficiencies of these applications will be discussed. Thus, different methods used in different fields and studies carried out by the literature review and new methodological problems will be revealed.

Keywords:

internet, web 2.0, methodology qualitative and quantitative research.,

PDF

___

Bausch, S. (2007). Nielsen//netratings Adds ‘Total Minutes’ Metric. Erişim 1 Temmuz 2012: http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_070710.pdf.
Beddows, E. (2008). The Methodological Issues Associated With Internet-Based Research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 6(2), 124- 139.
Berry, D. (2012). Introduction: Understanding the Digital Humanities. D. Berry (Ed). Understanding Digital Humanities (s.1-21). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boutin, P. (2006). Web 2.0: The New Internet ‘Boom’ Doesn’t Live Up to its Name. Erişim: 01 Aralık 2012, http://www.slate.com/id/2138951/
Boyd, D., Crawford, K (2011). Six Provocations for Big Data. A Decade in Internet Time. Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society: 21 Eylül 2011- Amsterdam. Oxford Internet Institute. Erişim: 15 Kasım 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.1926431
Brin, S., Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30 (1-7),107-117. Erişim: 15 Aralık 2013, http://ilpubs. stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf
Bruns, A., Burgess, J. E. (2012a) Doing blog research. Arthur, James, Waring, Michael, Coe, Robert, Hedges, Larry V. (Ed.). Research Methods and Methodologies in Education (202-209). Washington DC: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bruns, A., Burgess, J. E. (2012b). Notes towards the Scientific Study of Public Communication on Twitter. Tokar, A, Beurskens, M., Keuneke, S., Mahrt, M., Peters, I., Puschmann, C., van Treeck, T., &Weller, K. (Ed.). (2012). Science and the Internet (159-171). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
Buchanan, T., Smith, J.L. (1999). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125-144. Erişim: 01 Eylül 2013: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712699161189/abstract
Burgess, J., Green, J. (2009). Digital Media and Society Series. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Cairns, P., Blythe, M. (2009) Research Methods 2.0: doing research using virtual communities. P. Zaphiris, J. Ang, (Ed). Social Computing and Virtual Communities (s.37-67). Chapman and Hall. Erişim: 01 Ekim 2013, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downl oad?doi=10.1.1.157.4519&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Christians, C. D., Chen, S.S. (2004). Introduction: Technological environments and the evolution of social research methods. M. D. Johns, S.S. Chen, G.J. Hall (Ed.) Online Social Research: Methods, Issues & Ethics (s.15-23). New York : Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Clark, H.H., Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-29 Erişim: 4 Aralık 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/ s15516709cog1302_7/abstract
Cormode. G., Krishnamurthy, E. (2008). Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0. First Monday, 13 (6). Erişim: 10 Mayıs 2013, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/ printerFriendly/2125/1972
Fay, S., McLaughlin. M. L., Rafaeli. S. (1998). Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Featherstone, M., Burrows R. (1995). Cultures of Technological Embodiment: An Introduction. M. Featherstone, R. Burrows (Ed). Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk (s.1-21). Sage Publiations.
Fuchs, C. (2013). Social media and capitalism. T. Olsson (Ed). Producing the Internet. Critical perspectives of social media (s.25-44). Göteborg: Nordicom.
Harding, S. (2010). Feminism, science and the anti-Enlightenment critiques. A. Garry, M. Pearsall (Ed). Women, knowledge and reality: explorations in feminist philosophy (s.298-320). Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Hewson, C.M., Laurent, D., Vogel, C.M. (1996). Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 186-191. Erişim: 5 Kasım 2012, http://www.websm. org/uploadi/editor/proper.pdf
Hine, C. (2005). Internet Research and the Sociology of Cyber-Social-Scientific Knowledge. The Information Society: An International Journal, 21(4), 239-248. Erişim: 1 Eylül 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01972240591007553
Jones, S. G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. S. G. Jones (Ed.). Cybersociety - computer-mediated communication and community (s.10-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Jürgens, P. (2012). Communities of Communication: Making Sense of the “Social” in Social Media. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30:3-4, 186-203. Erişim: 10 Aralık 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20
Karpf, D. (2012). Social Science Research Methods In Internet Time. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 639-661. Erişim: 10 Eylül 2012, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ab s/1080/1369118X.2012.665468
Kaye, A. (1991). Learning together apart. A. R. Kaye (Ed.). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (s.1-24). NATO ASI Series. Erişim: 08 Ocak 2014, http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7
Kiesler, S. (1997). Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science, 331(6018), 7197 Erişim: 16 Aralık 2013, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/719.short Kozinets, R. (2002). The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 61-72.
Kraut, R.E., Streeter, L.A. (1995). Coordination in software development. Communication of the ACM, 38(3), 69-81.
Livingstone, S. (2005). Critical debates in Internet Studies: Reflections on an Emerging Field, London: LSE Research. Erişim: 15 Ekim 1023, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1011/1/ CriticaldebatesTODAY.pdf
Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The Promises and the Challenges of Big Social Data. M.K.Gold (Ed). Debates in the Digital Humanities (s.1-17). The University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
McQuail, D. (2005). Mcquail’s Mass Communication Theory. 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Mehta, R., Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of Market Research Societ., 37, 429-439.
Nass, C., Steuer, J. (1993). Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: Computers and social actors. Human Communication Research. 19(4), 504-527.
Newhagen, J. E., Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why Communication Researchers Shouls Study the Internet: A Dialogue. Journal of Communication, 46/1, 4-13. Erişim: 18 Kasım 2013, http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01458.x/abstract
O’Reilly Tim. (2005). What is Web 2.0 ?. Erişim: 1 Temmuz 2012, http://www.oreillynet.com/ pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Risvik, K.M., Michelsen. R. (2002). Search Engines and Web Dynamics. Computer Networks, 39, 289–302.
Riva, G., Galimberti, C. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 434-464.
Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual. Digital methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Sanders, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. C. Hine (Ed.) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet (67-81). Berg: New York.
Schuler, D. (1994). Community networks: building a new participatory medium. Communication of the ACM, 37 (1), 38-51.
Shannon. C.E., Weaver W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Terranova, T. (2000). Free Labor: producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text, 63, 8(2), 33-5 Erişim: 17 Eylül 2013, http://web.mit.edu/schock/www/docs/18.2terranova.pdf
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Van Dijck, J., Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 0 Business Manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(4), 855-874. Erişim: 6 Ocak 2014, http://www.gamespace.nl/content/Wikinomics_and_its_discontents_2009.pdf
Wellman, B. (2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293 (5537), 203120 Erişim: 16 Nisan 2013, http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~vassilis/courses/socialweb10F/ reading_material/1/Wellman01-ComputerNetworksAsSocialNetworks.pdf
Zimmer, M. (2008). The externalities of Search 2.0: The emerging privacy threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Erişim: 19 Aralık 2013, http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944