CHAPTER 4
Methodological issues
4.1. Overall design
This research approaches the phenomenon of online participation within a double perspective: citizens and media institutions. As has been seen in the introduction, the main research objectives (MRO) are:
Main Research Objective A: To research how citizens perceive online media participation, focusing on their attitudes and motivations towards the different options offered by news media to participate in their websites.
Main Research Objective B: To study through which participatory options news media are adopting citizens’
participation. To research if news media are opening their websites to users' contributions, facilitating citizens' opinion exchange, or restricting participatory formats.
Both research objectives study online media participation, but from different perspectives. MRO A aims to study citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards the phenomenon, while MRO B is aimed at analysing how news media are adapting their websites to include citizen participation. On the one hand, MRO A is aimed at researching something as complex or diffuse as citizens’ perceptions, which requires a methodology able to grasp citizens’ own reflexivity, putting into context these attitudes towards online media participation with other broad issues such as
public engagement, offline participation and the role of the media in everyday life.
On the other hand, MRO B aims to take a ‘picture’ of how news media websites are engaging with citizen participation at a particular moment in time. Consequently, different methodologies are needed in order to analyse these two aspects of online media participation. As Hansen et al. (1998) argued, in facing multidimensional phenomena researchers could benefit from a combination of research methods that approach the problem from different angles and perspectives. In order to address main research objective A, the methodology that has been chosen is focus groups research. For research objective B the chosen methodology has been content analysis of news media websites.
In establishing a methodology to answer MRO B, this research drew on previous similar research that studied how online news media adopt user participation (Deborah S. Chung & Nah, 2009; Hermida & Thurman, 2008b; Jönsson &
Örnebring, 2011b; Larsson, 2012b26). It is generally accepted that the best practice in this kind of research is to conduct content analysis using a study sheet, based on a typology of participatory tools, that allows researchers to better analyse each website and the options for participation that it permits. The last part of this chapter on methodology is aimed at presenting and justifying the typology of the participatory tools used in this study.
More complexity is required in designing a methodology to answer MRO A, as this aspect of online media participation has received less attention from academia (Borger et al., 2013). As authors such as Henry Jenkins or Nico Carpentier have pointed out, the point of view of the users has been traditionally misrepresented in media studies overall, but mainly with regard to studies on online media participation (Carpentier, 2009; Jenkins & Carpentier, 2013). This research will use a qualitative methodology, focus groups, in order to study citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards online media participation. The following sections will be aimed at justifying this particular approach, as well as presenting how the focus
26 See also Palacios & Díaz (2009) for a review of the different methodologies used in researching participatory journalism.
groups were selected and which processes have been followed to interpret the data collected during the focus group sessions.
4.2. A qualitative approach to citizens’ perceptions
Audience research has traditionally been a fruitful scenario for discussion about the different quantitative and qualitative methodologies, or as Larsson (2012a) has pointed out, more often between qualitative and quantitative researchers who adopted almost ideological positions. Although recent shifts in the nature of audiences, together with new possibilities for research introduced by new media, have involved some reformulations of the traditional dichotomy of research methodologies (Patriarche et al. 2014), the traditional basic distinction is still useful as a starting point to justify a particular research approach (Vicente-‐Mariño, 2014). Theories arguing in favour of a combination, or triangulation, of different methodologies in the same research project (Hansen et al., 1998), are still using the basic differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies to describe how different methodological approaches fill each other’s gaps (Jensen &
Jankowski, 1993). In a similar way, approaches which try to ‘quantify’ qualitative methodologies by introducing grades or diagram maps (Schrøder et al., 2003) are also accepting the limitations of a particular methodology, and the need to reformulate it by introducing some characteristics of the other part of the dichotomy.
Consequently, although is it true that it is becoming more complex to establish clear differences between what Larsson (2012) defines as ‘more’ quantitative methods and their ‘more’ qualitative equivalents, the basic differentiation between methodological approaches is still commonly accepted in media studies. Broadly, quantitative methodologies in audience research have traditionally been aimed more at generalisation, “quantifying the amount of people receiving a media message” (Vicente-‐Mariño, 2014: 39), that is, analysing ‘what’ audiences are doing (Hansen et al., 1998); while qualitative studies tend to be focused more on interpretation, being “committed to achieving a deeper knowledge about the
meaning attributed by individuals to those messages spread by conventional mass media” (Vicente-‐Mariño, 2014: 39), analysing ‘why’ or ‘how’ audiences are behaving in a particular way (Hansen et al., 1998). Broadening the description out of text-‐focused audience studies, quantitative methodologies have been more identified in media studies with numerical analysis conducted to illustrate the existing relationships between factors, while qualitative methodologies have tended to “emphasize the description and understanding of the situation behind the factors” (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004, p. 204)
In choosing a specific methodology for studying citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards online media participation, several issues were taken into account. Firstly, the nature of the problem under research (Jensen & Jankowski, 1993) seemed to lead to a more qualitative approach rather than to a quantitative one. Qualitative methodologies are in fact commonly perceived as a better option when analysing complex objects of research, those cases in which the researcher needs to understand and interpret, rather than establish causal relations between factors.
Furthermore, qualitative research could be more valuable when some component of reflexivity is needed among research participants (Markham & Couldry, 2007).
This process of reflexivity in which research participants should make sense of their own actions and perceptions is more difficult to obtain in a quantitative approach, but easier to produce in dialogical methodologies in which participants are challenged to talk and think about their own attitudes and motivations (Markham & Couldry, 2007)
Secondly, as has been seen in the theoretical background chapter, among the wide range of studies based on new media, users’ motivations have been traditionally an under-‐researched area. Consequently, the point of view of the audience regarding online media participation has traditionally been disregarded (Carpentier, 2009;
Jenkins and Carpentier, 2013; Borger et al., 2013). As some authors maintain (Deacon et al., 1999; Hansen et al., 1998), qualitative approaches tend to be more suitable for starting research in those areas that still have big gaps, where the problems and research questions tend to be less clear and more diffuse. Instead, quantitative research could be more useful when the questions and research
objects are more precisely identified, in order that they can be easily tracked and transformed into quantitative data. This is the case, for example, in extensive research projects that in order to ‘place’ and identify the problem use in an initial stage a qualitative approach, subsequently using the qualitative data to better plan a second quantitative part of the research, more aimed at generalizing findings (for example, in Couldry, Livingstone and Markham, 2007). Taking into account the existing uncertain scenario, not just regarding the specific research problem about users’ attitudes towards online participation, but also with regard to broad issues of audience studies and new media (Carpentier, Schrøder, & Hallett, 2014; Press &
Livingstone, 2006), it seemed more appropriate to approach the issue from a qualitative perspective rather than from a quantitative one.
Thirdly, even if scarce, some previous literature on audiences’ point of view towards online participation does exist (Heise et al. 2013; Larsson, 2011). This previous research applied a mainly quantitative approach, using surveys to analyse general trends in users’ online participation. However, these studies approached the subject without connecting online and offline participation, consequently researching the internet-‐based participatory practices outside the context of citizens’ civic or public engagement. Although interesting in their own approach, the quantitative data tells us more about what users are participating in rather than why or how they are doing it. For the purpose of this research, it seems more relevant to focus the attention on some recent previous studies that researched citizens’ sense-‐making of media consumption and mediated citizenship in their everyday life, strongly drawing on different combinations of qualitative methodologies, such as diaries, focus groups or in-‐depth interviews (Coleman et al., 2009; Couldry et al., 2007; Heikkilä et al., 2010; Press & Williams, 2010;
Schroder & Phillips, 2007). Although these previous studies do not approach the issue of online media participation, they do put media consumption into context with broad issues of public and civic engagement, connecting citizens’ attitudes towards media with their attitudes towards the public world, avoiding researching media-‐related practices in isolation. Furthermore, all of them use different qualitative methodologies to give centrality to citizens’ discourses, researching
media-‐related practices while decentering the text or media institutions as the main traditional objects of research (Couldry, 2010).
Taking into account these three different arguments, this research will apply a qualitative approach to study citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards online media participation. This does not mean that a quantitative approach would be not appropriate for this research. As Larsson (Larsson, 2012a) has pointed out, in choosing a research methodology sometimes the nature of the problem under research is an important variable, as are the preferences of the researcher.
Following Silverman (2013), I believe that there are no right or wrong methods.
Rather, each methodology could show different aspects of the same research object. Accordingly, by taking a quantitative approach this research would probably have benefited from a higher degree of generalizability. Qualitative approaches are more likely to dig deeper into the object of research, analysing its different meanings and implications, interpreting reality. However, due to the necessarily reduced number of research participants, generalizability is always their weakest point. I personally disagree with Baym when he argues that “(…) from a qualitative perspective, particularly a dialogical one, generalizability is neither relevant nor possible” (Baym, 2009, p. 175). Although generalizability could not be the main objective of a qualitative methodology, it should not be simply disregarded. By taking into consideration the selection of the research participants, for example, the researcher can at least improve the degree of generalizability of his research project. For example, in their study of public connection in the United Kingdom, Couldry, Livingstone and Markham (2007) used a reduced number of participants (37) to take part in their qualitative section of the research project, based on diary methodology. Researchers have argued that, despite the reduced number of diarists, their selection according to demographic variables could allow them to generalise some of the identified trends and main findings.
To conclude, in choosing a qualitative approach to study citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards online media participation, I am consciously favouring an approach that gives more importance to digging deeper into the research problem,
trying to understand the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of audiences’ perceptions of on online media participation. This approach puts the focus onto research participants, through motivating their own reflexivity about the issues under study, trying to find general trends and behavioural patterns among research participants. By doing so, I am aware of the limitations of the research project (generalizability), but also of its potentialities, as it approaches the phenomenon through a new lens, trying to fill a gap in the existing literature on online participation. Furthermore, it could also open the gates to further research that could use some of the findings of this study to better plan a research project based on survey research or other quantitative methodologies more aimed at generalizing findings.
Among the different qualitative approaches, this research has chosen focus groups as the methodology used to analyse citizens’ attitudes and motivations towards online media participation, rather than other qualitative methodologies such as diaries, in-‐depth interviews or participant and non-‐participant observation. The main point here is that focus groups are especially useful in promoting interaction among research participants by encouraging people “to engage with one another, verbally formulate their ideas and draw out the cognitive structures which previously have been articulated” (Kitzinger, 1994, p. 4), while other qualitative methodologies do not include this dialogical and reflexive element. As already introduced, this research needs to promote participants self-‐reflexivity around the different issues or subjects that form the research project. Online participation, public and civic engagement and the role of media-‐related practices in everyday life are issues that citizens interpret and understand socially (Schutz, 1967).
Participants in this research will need, then, some internal processes of self-‐
reflection to be able to formulate and better express their opinions about these issues.
According to Morgan (1997), focus group discussions stimulate the self-‐reflection of participants through collective conversation, being a process of non-‐natural conversation in which participants reflect and show their ‘latent thoughts’ (Hansen et al., 1998). Kitzinger (1994) also argued that focus groups could reveal dimensions of understanding that often remain untapped by the more
conventional one-‐to-‐one interview, while Gamson (1992) pointed out the potential of using focus groups especially to better understand ‘how people construct meanings about public issues’ (Gamson, 1992, p. 191). Moreover, Lunt and Livingstone have argued how focus groups could be used as a simulation of these routine but relatively inaccessible communicative contexts which can help us discover the processes by which meaning is socially constructed through everyday talk” (Lunt and Livingstone, 1996:9).
Among the other qualitative methodologies, ethnographical observation has been considered as the least suitable for the objectives of this research, as it does not promote participants’ self-‐reflection. In fact, this methodology is more suitable for researching behaviours that take place at a particular moment in time (Morgan, 1997). Despite the fact that online ethnography could be suitable in researching user behaviours in specific online sites such as online forums or social networking sites (Vicente-‐Mariño, 2014), it does not include this dialogical and self-‐reflexive component that this research needs. Regarding diaries and interviews, these methodologies do include this component of reflection, but not as strongly as focus groups do. On the one hand, diaries are especially suitable for collecting patterns of media consumption, and could also be used to collect participants’ reflections about these patterns (Vicente-‐Mariño, 2014). However, this reflection will be individual, without a dialogical component. On the other hand, interviews could promote self-‐reflection and dialogical conversation about participants’ attitudes and motivations towards a certain topic, but it will always be in the context of an interviewed-‐interviewee process, without a group component. As Morgan (1997) stated, the point of view of the interviewee becomes more relevant in an individual interview, having then more relevance during the dialogical conversation. When debating complex issues, as this research intends to do, it was decided that group interviews were more likely to produce this component of self-‐reflection:
participants can think about their perceptions when others are talking, challenge each other when debating, and consider issues that might not appear in an individual interview.
4.3. Focus groups, planning and design
According to Morgan (1997) there are four main issues which need to be taken into consideration in planning focus group research: i) Who will participate in the groups? ii) Size of the groups? iii) Total number of groups? iv) How structured will the group be? This section will present the overall planning and design of the focus group sessions, answering these questions and also presenting further developments in analysing and interpreting participants’ interventions as well as some issues regarding quantification of the data collected during the sessions.
4.3.1. Participants’ selection
In order to minimise the common problem in representativeness and generalizing findings inherent in qualitative research, the selection of participants was made following different methodologies in line with previous research and best practices. According to Morgan (1997), although in focus group research it is hardly difficult to achieve complete generalizability, the objective of minimizing sample bias can be fulfilled by applying criteria of ‘theoretically motivated sampling’.
Firstly, following previous research that used focus group methodology (Schroder and Phillips, 2007; Coleman, Anthony and Morrison, 2009), age and level of education were the two main characteristics that structured the gathering of participants. By taking into consideration these main characteristics, this research will ensure that all age groups and levels of education are present in the different focus group sessions. Furthermore, age and educational level were also the selected criteria used to distribute participants among the different focus group sessions. According to some authors (Krueger, 1991; Morgan, 1997) one of the dangers in focus group sessions is that some of the participants could feel uncomfortable and less willing to participate, due to patterns of behaviour or personality. By forming groups of participants with similar characteristics (similar age and similar level of education), together with the active role of the moderator
(Kitzinger, 1994), these problems can be minimised. Special attention has been made in ensuring gender representation regarding the overall of participants both in London and Barcelona.
Secondly, although the main aim of the study is not to compare the participants in London with those in Barcelona, it was decided that the groups of participants would have to be as similar as possible, with regard to sociodemographic characteristics. Harmonizing the processes of gathering participants in the two countries could ensure this. According to Vicente-‐Mariño (2014), applying different strategies when recruiting participants is a good practice to ensure attracting people with different profiles, avoiding sample bias. This research used, in both countries, the following strategies in order to gather participants for the focus group sessions:
a) Groups of acquaintances: Morgan (1997) argues that organizing sessions in which the participants already know each other ensures that debate and conversation will flow from the first minute. As participants are close, they challenge each other in answering the questions and the moderator’s work becomes aimed more at directing the conversation, in order to ensure participants are not skipping the topic, rather than promoting participation among an initially more reluctant and silent group of participants (Kitzinger, 1994). To form groups of acquaintances, first the researcher needs to establish in which categories of age and educational level he is interested. After that, a person who meets these criteria (named the ‘anchor’) needs to be identified and convinced to come on the appointed day to the place of the focus group session, together with a certain number of friends who also meet the predetermined sociodemographic criteria.
Seven focus groups for this research were formed using this method.
b) Groups of strangers: Although groups of acquaintances have some positive characteristics, they could also have negative ones. Principally, according to Morgan (1997), groups of friends are more likely to agree the answers, tending to adapt to each other’s responses in order to avoid debate. Furthermore, as friends, they are also likely to have similar opinions about basic things, normally about