Opportunities and Constraints in Disseminating Qualitative Research in Web 2.0 Virtual Environments

Wider audiences and new perspectives

The appeal of digital media as means for KD is easily appreciated when one considers the advantages of these technologies that offer tools that, if used judiciously, are likely to be beneficial to the research community and facilitate positive connections with other communities of media users (Kolmes, 2012). A considerable benefit not realized by traditional means (e.g., journal articles or conference abstracts) or Web 1.0 is that it significantly widens the audiences that have ready access to the research findings (Gattone, 2012; Weigold et al., 2007). Put concisely, the best strategy to reach large numbers of people is through an online item that goes viral. Strategic viral marketing by publishers and research groups and institutions attempt to guide and prescribe optional promotion. For example, Pfeiffer (2013) produced films during a participatory research project with adolescents in Tanzania on reproductive health realities, and disseminated the films via DVD promoted by local television stations as well as by posting on YouTube. However, many individual researchers’ dissemination efforts are more organic. One of the key drivers is spreadability or “the extent to which a viewer likes the content and is motivated to share it” (Bal, Archer-Brown, Robson, & Hall, 2013, p. 204). Social networking sites such as Facebook expose people to information sources they may never have seen before (Brossard, 2013).

Many leading peer-reviewed journals have used multiple Web 2.0 domains such as Twitter and Facebook to actively disseminate findings (Bernhardt et al., 2011). This exposes research findings to a wide array of audiences who may be interested in the research in various social and geographical contexts and who in turn may generate new perspectives and applications of the findings (Gattone, 2012). For example, Twitter can engage a number of users in discussions about the veracity and applicability of research findings. When people are able to express their thoughts and opinions about research findings using these forums, they are more likely to learn more about the findings and to experience attitudinal change than if they simply read research reports or attended scholarly presentations (Prislin et al., 2011). It is not only completed research that benefits from this, but there is also a growing number of articles-in-draft posted in wikis and blogs whereby readers can contribute to the development of the ideas or discuss the implications of the findings as they emerge (Brossard, 2013; Colson, 2011; Zivkovic, 2008). This formative feedback during the process of development can be constructively informative compared with the usual process of peer review of completed journal manuscripts.

Symbiosis between traditional and digital

Much of the literature to date presents digital media as an alternative to conventional forms of KD, particularly as a way to circumvent increasing barriers to publishing in traditional format (Houghton, Steel, & Henty, 2004). However, this view does not highlight the symbiotic relationship between the traditional and nontraditional. The most obvious is the ability to disseminate empirical research knowledge through nontext formats, such as the ethnographic video articles in the open-access Journal of Video Ethnography, established in late 2014 (http://www.videoethno.com). Dissemination is also facilitated through links to articles, abstracts, and presentations on social networking sites (Andersen & Söderqvist, 2012). This can draw attention to work that might otherwise be inaccessible to nonacademics. Web links can be posted on flyers and posters about the research, directing anyone interested to blogs and other forms of digital messaging in which users can dialogue with the researcher and others about the research (Terras, 2012). Often, this occurs through special QR (Quick Response Codes) graphical icons that, when photographed by a smartphone, will immediately bring up a Web page without the user having to enter the Web address. Using social media to market or promote articles formally or informally can increase downloads, citations, and presumably create a wider impact (Andersen & Söderqvist, 2012). For example, Terras (2012) discovered that her research articles were downloaded significantly more often after she discussed them using digital media than when she relied only on journal publications. One published article had been downloaded twice in 1 year, but after using digital media to bring the article to prominence, 140 users across the globe downloaded it. Social media can also provide a platform to share background information that is not easily published elsewhere. Qualitative researchers recognize the constraints in comprehensively describing research process in traditional journal articles. Hyperlinks to blogs in which this reflective experience is shared complement more focused reports.

Tracking usage

Several forms of digital media include features that permit the tracking of use so that researcher can identify which messages about their research are capturing users’ attention. Twitter, for example, is “a real-time information network” (Twitter, n.d.) in which users share “tweets” of 140 characters or less and tag messages using a “hashtag.” The hashtag feature of Twitter enables researchers to determine which groups of users attend to particular messages about the research and to track interest in the message among users as an aggregate and among specific user groups (Hermida, 2012). This can help researchers develop networks of people with similar research interests.

Transformation of gatekeeper roles

Scholarly publishing is adapting quickly to take advantage of the Web 2.0 interactive features. Crowd-sourced review, in which member of the public may post comments to a posted article with, or without editorial mediation, is an emerging option in open peer review (Ford, 2013). Informal forums in which researchers can post complete or in-progress research findings no longer require a middleperson or a gatekeeper in the same way peer-reviewed journals require (Martland & Rothbaum, 2007). Issues such as journal preferences, peer review, and editorial decisions become less influential as Web-based dissemination increases by individual researchers establishing their own forums and vehicles for communicating their research. This permits researchers to present their “message” in different ways and in different forms, appealing to a wide variety of potential audiences with different tastes and interests, the hope being that interested readers will pull the information directly (Hanson, Thackeray, Barnes, Neiger, & McIntyre, 2008). It is challenging to determine the extent of this approach, although Boydell, Gladstone, Volpe, Allemang, and Stasiulis (2012) offer a review of arts-based health research, and Gonzalez de Armas, Archidald, and Scott (2014) has initiated an inventory tracking in-progress arts-based projects.

Grassroots/lack of control

There is a rapidly expanding grassroots empowerment movement in which “users are learning how to master these media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact (and cocreate) with other users” (Jenkins & Deuze, 2008, p. 6). Users of digital media in these virtual ecosystems can write over, amend, add to, and then recirculate the information posted by the researcher. Although the science literacy of the general public is increasing, there may still remain relatively poor understanding of the goals, nature, strengths, and limitations of research in general (Weigold et al., 2007) and qualitative research in particular. There is considerable risk that users may produce amateur versions of the content, rather than the versions that are published by expert researchers who are culturally and ethically responsive (Keen & Todres, 2007). That viewers have interpreted qualitative representations is acknowledged, but the speed in which this hypermedia can be distributed, recreated, and applied has significant implications when those interpretations were not intended by the researchers (Pfeiffer, 2013). Specifically, there is a risk that even when hypermedia contains multiple forms of data representations (e.g., narratives, films, photographs) to represent multilinear texts, users may use them to create their own narrower narratives (Pink, 2007). Pink further argues that the dynamic between visual representations and users continues to be largely neglected and there is a worrying gap in knowledge about hypermedia user’s experiences.

Co-opted work

Qualitative researchers posting research findings in digital media are faced with the possibility of someone usurping the findings for their own purposes (Scanlon, 2014). For example, people with commercial or other vested interests may highlight certain research findings as more prominent than they actually were. Any individual may stretch the significance of particular findings to make a point. Corporations and individuals with agendas can use the freely available and participatory nature of digital technologies to promote targeted messages or to influence particular populations. Examples of this practice exist on YouTube in the arena of smoking cessation messaging by health promotion advocates as well as pro-smoking marketing by the tobacco industry (Bottorff et al., 2014; Paek, Kim, Hove, & Huh, 2014). Adding to this is the challenge of presenting research findings in abbreviated format, such as videos posted to YouTube. While it is essential to provide links to the original work, there is no guarantee that users will use these links and researchers can place few controls on viewers’ ability to selectively use and adapt whichever findings meet their needs regardless of the context. Professional academic plagiarism is of concern to many academics, as Lupton’s (2014) survey of 711 academics’ use of social media discovered. One participant in this study commented, “How much can/should you share of your research via social media before it’s published, and who, if anyone, cites pre-article material?” (p. 29). While traditional, professional, and academic cultural norms enforce reputation and citation to ensure honesty (Acord & Harley, 2013), the extent to which this will remain effective in the global environment is unclear.

Central to these issues are values about the interpretation of research findings by researcher versus user. Findings can be used to support individual, group, or corporate agendas. Emergence of “citizen researchers” or “people who have no social science qualifications or experience and who want to do research for purposes other than adding to academic knowledge” (Fielding, 2012, para. 4) raise the possibility of users selectively extracting findings for their own purposes. In Lupton’s survey, there was considerable concern about the potential for research findings to be misrepresented, taken out of context, stretched or distorted, and overlooked (Lupton, 2014). When these incidents occur, the individuals involved generally do not discuss limits of transferability of the research findings they are using. For example, research reported by Dr. Barbara Paterson on a Facebook site was used by members of an advocacy group as evidence to support a public campaign of free transportation for all urban citizens to receive health care, despite the fact that the research pertained only to rural people who lived in poverty. The difficulties for consumers in establishing the quality of information, issues in determining authorship in the absence of source citation, and dangers inherent in users posting personal opinion as fact (Vance, Howe, & Dellavalle, 2009) result in urgent calls to critically reflect on the dynamics in Web 2.0 modalities and responsibilities of researchers. Although such challenges may certainly occur when individuals attend a scholarly presentation or read a journal article, the viral nature of digital media and its emphasis on brevity makes this an issue of even greater import. This is particularly concerning to researchers who open their professional work to public scrutiny when they post thoughts and ideas about their research; they risk being attacked by digital media users as lacking credibility or relevance (Carr, 2010; Lupton, 2014).

Web searches on governmental sites and direct enquiries to agencies by the authors provide many examples of handbooks and posted guidelines for creating effective messages to various publics using various kinds of media (e.g., see CDC, 2013). Direct enquiry to the U.S. CDC, however, returned the response that CDC had no protocol to guide researchers in considering how their messages might be used by various members of the public (email CDC Acting Social Media Team Lead, July 24, 2014). In fact, CDC’s (2012) handbook on creating social media messages mandates an approval process determined—by guidelines that are unclear even to the CDC—within each office or center. The only formalized evaluation tool for messages produced by CDC is the agency’s “Clear Communication Index” (CDC, 2013), which attempts to measure whether a message is comprehensible to the intended audience, without considering what the audience might do with the information once it has been understood.

Despite clear direction from governmental agencies like CDC, some social media organizations are alert to these concerns. “Reddit” is a site where users known as “Redditors” post user-generated content and links to other online content. Areas of the site that are dedicated to specific interests are known as “subreddits” and include nearly any topic imaginable. Recently, Reddit’s Science subreddit instituted a verification system for scientists posting information there. Users can now verify a poster’s scientific background—or that they are a science journalist—using a “flair” or text/images that accompany the redditor’s name in comments (http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1s6410/subreddit_announcement_nature_partnership_with/).

The line between science and opinion is blurring. Online sources including wikis and blogs often do not separate science and opinion. There is increasing popularity of YouTube to share personal narratives by, for example, cancer survivors. These narratives are characterized by dramatic tension and emotional engagement, which makes them powerful storytelling communication devices (Chou, Hunt, Folkers, & Augustson, 2011). On the other hand, potential users may not have the knowledge background to determine credible sources, or to notice when research findings have been utilized, re-represented, or misapplied out of context, or indeed, are not research based (Brossard, 2013). There is growing concern in communication science over the documented habits of online surfers, who, with the aid of mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones, tend to frequently but briefly surf for information with little critical evaluation. Online information is embedded in a format that contains a number of cues about accuracy, importance, or popularity accompanied by numbers that imply significance, importance, or uptake (such as Facebook “likes,” twitter mentions, or number of readers’ comments) provided by third party, end-user peer apomediators. These seemingly statistical numbers that are essentially a popularity contest (Acord & Harley, 2013) can potentially affect the reader’s interpretation of the information (Brossard, 2013). This has significant implications for how qualitative researchers represent complex findings in brief form or for how such comments may add additional layers of meaning that the researcher did not intend.

Anonymization and bullying

Digital media relies on speed of messaging and the candid sharing messages among a wide audience; these features increase the potential for harm. Because digital media does not require that people identify themselves with their real names, users may feel unencumbered to make harmful or inappropriate comments or engage in cyberbullying, and this concerns many academic researchers (Lupton, 2014). There are times, particularly when the focus of the study is on a marginalized population, when users misinterpreting and conveying inappropriate messaging might lead to untoward consequences. As an example, Langford, Litts, and Pearson (2013) write of the danger of users engaging in digital discussions about military suicides; their concern was that users might convey a sense of hopelessness or the notion that suicides are more prevalent than they are in reality.

Variable user search skills

Web search engine functions can give access to limitless information (Brossard, 2013), and the user can tailor the search to personal preferences and needs. While at first glance, this feature may appear beneficial, it can pose significant challenges because not all users are equally skilled at searching. Users search for information on the Web using their own words, not necessarily the search terms deemed by researchers to be representative of the research. Users unfamiliar with search engines may not locate the research because they limit their search domain, use too-specific search terms, or are unaware how to refine their search terms to allow for a broader range of results (Martland & Rothbaum, 2007). As there may be significant variation of user demographic characteristics across Web 2 applications, researchers may need to use multiple tools to achieve their dissemination goals (Bik & Goldstein, 2013).

Researcher skills and resources

Unfortunately, academic institutions are only slowly creating infrastructure to meet the challenges of Web 2.0 KD. Dissemination and promotion of research beyond journals and conferences are subject to institutional controls, and universities often rely on specialized communication and marketing departments that have institutional branding and identity formation on their agendas. For many qualitative researchers, however, KD needs may go beyond the mission and capacity of such departments (Andersen & Söderqvist, 2012).

KD is a task for individual researchers. Many qualitative researchers feel more prepared and skilled in the traditional forms of KD, such as writing journal articles or presenting at conferences. Developing proficiency in the Web 2.0 environment is not widely part of many professional or disciplinary research preparation programs (Hanson et al., 2008). In addition, applying research to practice is often regarded as beyond the boundaries of the research process, and thus, investigators are less motivated to actively disseminate transformed and tailored information for targeted audiences, or to engage in discussion of the meaning or application of the findings (Keen & Todres, 2007).

Researchers can perceive KD by digital media as being more time-consuming and labor-intensive than more traditional formats (Hammond & Cooper, 2011). Even those researchers who are familiar with the technology may find the time required to sustain an interesting blog or to tweet about research overwhelming (Terras, 2012). Carr (2010) suggests that researchers who engage in KD in digital media may find their work/life balance compromised because of the time investment required for digital media.

The new Web 2.0 media landscape provides a wide range of communicative formats to fit researchers’ purposes, should they be willing and able to use them. To date, there is little evidence that younger researchers are utilizing these approaches to any great extent, despite a possibly greater level of comfort with the technologies (Harley, Acord, Earl-Novell, Lawrence, & King, 2010). This may be related to concerns about requirements for career advancement. Many academic researchers may not regard novel approaches to active dissemination of research as meritable activity. Dominant cultural norms within disciplines greatly influence the valuing of traditional peer-reviewed publication over opportunities afforded by new technologies. While more creative approaches to judging quality or success in scholarship are evolving, the gold standard remains formal publication (Acord & Harley, 2013). At the present time, it is unclear whether active dissemination using Web 2.0 is rewarded or impedes career progression within traditional academia (Bernhardt et al., 2011), although there seems to be little to no recognition of social media contributions, in that a recent survey indicates that only 8% of 367 social scientists surveyed in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom stated that social media activities contributed to their tenure of promotion reviews (Gruzd, Goertzen, & Mai, 2012).

Ethical challenges

There are ethical challenges in the digital KD of qualitative research that are not yet clearly addressed. Qualitative researchers are charged with the responsibility to preserve the depth and richness of the data they have collected, while accurately depicting the thematic structuring, processes of case comparison, and typology of data within the data analysis. Decontextualized data presented through channels such as micro-blogs (e.g., Twitter) present a significant challenge in this regard. Some media such as Twitter or short YouTube videos provide only “sound bites” of research reports, and information may be taken out of context or distorted, that is, messages that decontextualize and sensationalize parts but not the whole of the research findings. Including clear links to the original research report does not guarantee that those “surfing” for information may extract information based on a brief and superficial view (Brossard, 2013). In addition, science communication researchers have identified concerns with the extent to which seemingly innocuous contextual information, such as specific wording choices in media such as Twitter, or search terms, can prime readers to view information in particular ways. Such inadvertent contextual information may act either to encourage or discourage further dissemination (Brossard, 2013). Most researchers may focus on content and may not have the communication background necessary to be cognizant of these subtle but influential factors.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality may be difficult to ensure when research data such as images and voices are posted, or when research participants request a copy of their data and post it themselves. For example, discovery of a participant’s information on the Internet can occur when shared or overlapping friend networks are identified on media sites such as Facebook (Kolmes & Taube, 2011). This is a particular concern for participants who share a similar social identity, such as cultural affiliation or sexual orientation, or when the researcher posts quotes of a participant speaking about someone else who has not provided informed consent for the study. Posting of actual participant images and voices may also be tracked more easily than if it were confined to a journal with restricted access to subscribers. It may also be a concern for the researcher who may be tracked by a Web user and perhaps stalked (Kolmes, 2012). There is increasing concern of traceability of quotes used from online data sources as search engine techniques advance so that “all comments are traceable,” which can lead to usernames, profiles (Henderson, Johnson, & Auld, 2013). These authors warn that if researchers are not aware of the metadata included in embedded digital media, such as photos taken by smart phones and tablets, viewers online can trace location, time, and author. These concerns are exacerbated because digital media is accessible by everyone, unless specific restrictions are placed on its access. Participants in a qualitative research study about addiction may not think ahead, when completing the informed consent for the study, about the potential impact they may face if their colleagues or employer read about their addiction.

Harassment of research participants whose personal information is revealed in the Web environment is particularly concerning because of the ongoing and viral nature of digital media. As most online information remains available for years, there is a potential for viewers to discover a person’s identity by searching across multiple media. What is of most concern in this scenario is the ability of the harasser to remain anonymous. This potential to create harm is illustrated in the case of an online poster using the name of Nerdy Apple Bottom, who wrote a blog titled “My Son Is Gay.” The blog described how her 5-year-old son wanted to dress as a female cartoon character for Halloween. The blog went viral, resulting in several media reports and interviews. Many commentators berated the blogger for being an unfit mother and speculated about her son’s sexual orientation. Although the blogger later closed down the blog to comments, a recent Google search for this item revealed 100,000 entries (Kolmes, 2012). We could find no empirical research on the incidence of harassment although we have anecdotal accounts related by delegates during conferences.