As I write the methods section of my diss, I've been thinking about this question. The implications here are at least two fold...data that is overlooked and data that is difficult or impossible to obtain. Both issues exist as limitations for all our research and are easily overlooked with internet research as most of us suffer from a wealth of available data. This type of discussion is a difficult one to have because the human mind is not well wired to recognize unexperienced absence. It's easy to see what is missing if we have seen it before, but it is very hard to work through a complete intellectual exercise of identifying what MIGHT be there but has not been previously seen. I think this is particularly difficult for young researchers in any field as you need a history to recognize where the paths may be running parallel to the road but are hidden by the bushes. As a blogging researcher, I'm conscious of two groups of data that are missing from my corpora...I should say two sets that I am clear are missing. First, anything that his happening behind a firewall. I can't get to this data so I define my projects as being blogs that are publicly available...that covers for the fact that I know there is data that is unavailable to me. Second, most of the blogs I find are using some form of blogging software. It is likely that some blogs are out there that are handcoding their posts...maybe not many but some...and those are missed when using search engines to locate subject blogs. Which brings me to my last point...search engines. When I peer review, it often hits me how much data is being missed by relying on a single search engine for collection...also how often this is done without the author acknowledging the biases are introduced into the work by this choice. Maybe if the author tried another search venue they might find other important data...maybe not...but you never know until you try. My $0.02. Hope that helps Lois On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Mohammad H. Hasani <mh_hasani@yahoo.com>wrote:
--- On Sat, 8/7/10, Mohammad H. Hasani <mh_hasani@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Mohammad H. Hasani <mh_hasani@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Missing Data in Qualitative and Online Research To: "William Dutton" <william.dutton@oii.ox.ac.uk> Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 12:59 PM
Generally speaking,
1. I think missing data in a Qual research is data could make a significant contribution to the grounded concept or theory but researcher neglects or fails to collect. Repeating some phases in data collection/analysis, conducting parallel Qual research or reverse previewing of the research phases seems to help.
2. The same for CMR, but here, the researcher should also pay more attention to the cases; inappropriate cases may cause collecting poor data could be seen as missed.
Triangulated observations may help in this case.
Mohammad H. Hasani,
Instructor in Sociology
Payame Noor University
--- On Fri, 8/6/10, William Dutton <william.dutton@oii.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
From: William Dutton <william.dutton@oii.ox.ac.uk> Subject: [Air-L] Missing Data in Qualitative and Online Research To: "air-l@listserv.aoir.org" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Date: Friday, August 6, 2010, 8:17 AM
Dear List Members,
My colleagues and I would greatly appreciate your input to an exploratory project on missing data in qualitative and online research.* We would appreciate anything from your immediate reactions while reading this e-mail to detailed references to literature that has addressed our questions.
There are two very general but heuristically useful questions. Your views on either would be welcomed. Feel free to reply privately or to the list, as you wish.
1. What is ‘missing data’ in the context of qualitative research and how is it dealt with?
2. Likewise, in computer-mediated research, are researchers missing particular kinds of data, or believe that they are missing particular kinds of observations, and how are they compensating or otherwise addressing this gap?
Thoughts? Thank you,
Bill
*This is a collaborative project between the ESRC’s National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) ‘hub’ (Graham Crow, Rose Wiles), WISERD (Amanda Coffey), Oxford eSocial Science ‘node’ of NCeSS (Bill Dutton, Alison Powell), and Qualidata/Timescapes (Libby Bishop), based on our recognition of a shared but not well developed problem.
William Dutton, Director Professor of Internet Studies Oxford Internet Institute 1 St Giles', Oxford OX1 3JS UK
e-mail: william.dutton at oii.ox.ac.uk Web: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=1 Phone: +44 (0)1865 287 212 Cell: +44 (0)7768 823906
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate - School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com