Abstract |
: |
The internet and its social applications have imposed themselves as the essential tools in people’s everyday life. Social network sites (SNS) researches hence become a lucrative field of study among diverse scholars who have developed and published several studies throughout the past ten years. Drawing on the methodological research work accomplished so far to study SNS and its impact on people and communities around the world, this paper focuses on the type of methodologies practiced in most researches addressing SNS global phenomenon. Hence, the paper queries are: 1) what are the publications trends normally used in publishing SNS literature? 2) What are the research methods commonly practiced in literature? 3) Suggestions for various other methodological options to employ. This paper is grounded on studying an array of 112 research papers published from 2006 to 2016 where articles were identified through a systematic process. Articles followed a four staged process where they were reviewed, analysed, and coded through a qualitative content analysis approach. Findings show the publications in all disciplines are discussing SNS from one angle or another. Secondly, the most used research method by researchers and scholars across various disciplines is quantitative tools mostly online surveys followed with ethnography through observation of content analysis of sites. The mixed methods methodology represents only 9% of the investigated sample. Further, not much research is accomplished about the Middle East region as the analysis presents only 15% mainly focusing on SNS’s usage pattern rather than arising in-depth investigation of changes in people’s life. Recommendations to obtain offline genuine human preferences and opinions gathered through face to face focus group and interviews in addition to online behaviours trending for more informative results and predications. Likewise, for the Middle East region, need to investigate acutely SNS’s impact on changing people pattern of behaviour and cultural structure. |
References |
: |
[1]Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications; 2014.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[2]Snelson CL. Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: a review of the literature. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2016; 15(1):1-15.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[3]Gomes G, Duarte C, Coelho J, Matos E. Designing a facebook interface for senior users. The Scientific World Journal. 2014:1-8.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[4]Andriole SJ. Business impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Communications of the ACM. 2010; 53(12):67-79.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[5]Duggan M, Ellison NB, Lampe C, Lenhart A, Madden M. Social media update 2014. Pew Research Center, 2015.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[6]Best P, Manktelow R, Taylor B. Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2014; 41:27-36.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[7]Hamm MP, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott SD, Klassen TP, et al. Social media use by health care professionals and trainees: a scoping review. Academic Medicine. 2013; 88(9):1376-83.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[8]Jones E, Sinclair JM, Holt RI, Barnard KD. Social networking and understanding alcohol-associated risk for people with type 1 diabetes: friend or foe?. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2013; 15(4):308-14.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[9]Williams SA, Terras MM, Warwick C. What do people study when they study Twitter? Classifying Twitter related academic papers. Journal of Documentation. 2013; 69(3):384-410.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[10]Snell N. If you are not online, you don’t exist. (Web log post). Retrieved from http://thesnell.com/blog/2009/03/03/if-youre-not-online-you-dont-exist/. Accessed 25 December 2016.
|
[11]Boyd D. Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning-youth, identity, and digital media volume. 2007:119-42.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[12]Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons. 2010; 53(1):59-68.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[13]Brandtzæg PB, Lüders M, Skjetne JH. Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2010; 26(11-12):1006-30.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[14]Wellman B. Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. Contemporary Studies in Sociology. 1997; 15:19-61.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[15]https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ Accessed 25 August 2017.
|
[16]Błachnio A, Przepiórka A, Rudnicka P. Psychological determinants of using Facebook: a research review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2013; 29(11):775-87.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[17]Caers R, De Feyter T, De Couck M, Stough T, Vigna C, Du Bois C. Facebook: a literature review. New Media & Society. 2013; 15(6):982-1002.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[19]Manca S, Ranieri M. Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology‐enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29(6):487-504.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[20]Nadkarni A, Hofmann SG. Why do people use Facebook?. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012; 52(3):243-9.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[21]Wilson RE, Gosling SD, Graham LT. A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012; 7(3):203-20.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[22]Dhir A, Buragga K, Boreqqah AA. Tweeters on campus: twitter a learning tool in classroom?. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 2013; 19(5):672-91.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[23]Snelson C. YouTube across the disciplines: a review of the literature. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2011; 7(1):159-69.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[24]Leung D, Law R, Van Hoof H, Buhalis D. Social media in tourism and hospitality: a literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2013; 30(1-2):3-22.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[25]Kalampokis E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K. Understanding the predictive power of social media. Internet Research. 2013; 23(5):544-59.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[26]Gross R, Acquisti A. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In proceedings of the ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society 2005 (pp. 71-80). ACM.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[27]Fogel J, Nehmad E. Internet social network communities: risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009; 25(1):153-60.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[28]Cecere G, Le Guel F, Soulié N. Perceived internet privacy concerns on social networks in Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015; 96:277-87.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[29]Yoo SJ, Huang WH. Comparison of web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2011; 14(4):241-52.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[30]Tambouris E, Panopoulou E, Tarabanis K, Ryberg T, Buus L, Peristeras V, et al. Enabling problem based learning through web 2.0 technologies: PBL 2.0. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2012; 15(4):238-51.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[31]Zdravkova K, Ivanović M, Putnik Z. Experience of integrating web 2.0 technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2012; 60(2):361-81.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[32]Creswell J W. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated; 2009.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[33]De Vaus DA, De Vaus D. Research design in social research. SAGE Publications; 2001.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[34]Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33(7):14-26.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[35]Abbas T, Charles T. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE Publications; 2003.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[36]Danah b. Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace. http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html. Accessed 26 November 2017.
|
[37]Thelwall M. Social networks, gender, and friending: an analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2008; 59(8):1321-30.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[38]Arnold SE. http://www.arnoldit.com/articles/sas-white-paper.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2017.
|
[39]Abrahams AS, Jiao J, Wang GA, Fan W. Vehicle defect discovery from social media. Decision Support Systems. 2012; 54(1):87-97.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[40]Lane PC, Clarke D, Hender P. On developing robust models for favourability analysis: model choice, feature sets and imbalanced data. Decision Support Systems. 2012; 53(4):712-8.
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[41]Harden A, Thomas J. Mixed methods and systematic reviews: examples and emerging issues. SAGE Publication. 2010.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[42]Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications; 2012.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[44]Mathers N, Fox NJ, Hunn A. Surveys and questionnaires. NHS Executive; 1998.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[45]Wright KB. Researching Internet‐based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication. 2005; 10(3).
|
[Crossref] |
[Google Scholar] |
[46]Thompson G. Between hierarchies and markets: the logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford University Press on Demand; 2003.
|
[Google Scholar] |
[47]Domínguez S, Hollstein B. Mixed methods social networks research: design and applications. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
|
[Google Scholar] |
|