Methodological Reflections on Online Data Collection during the Covid-19 Pandemic

https://doi.org/10.22146/jp.71694

Sumedi P. Nugraha(1*), Dewi H. Susilastuti(2)

(1) Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Socio-Cultural Sciences, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Master and Doctoral Program in Leadership and Policy Innovation, The Graduate School, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Center for Population and Policy Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The pandemic closed the door for the use of conventional, face-to-face data collection methods. At the same time, it built a momentum for the exploration and utilization of online data collection methods. However, the belief about superiority of the offline data collection persists. The literature review and the authors’ research experience reveal that offline and online data collection methods yield similar result in terms of data completion and quality. All data collection methods contain weaknesses and strengths. Nonetheless, the online data collection methods are very versatile. They allow the researchers to choose the tools that best align with their research objectives.


Keywords


research amidst the pandemic; collection methods; research ethics

Full Text:

PDF


References

Ballivian, A., Azevedo, J., Durbin, W., Rios, J., Godoy, J., Borisova, C., & Ntsama, S. M. 2013. Listening to LAC: Using Mobile Phones for High Frequency Data Collection: Final Report. The World Bank.

Beaulieu, A. 2004. Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology 18(2–3), 139–163.

Beaulieu, A. 2010. From co-location to co- presence: shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of knowledge. Social Studies of Science 40(3): 453–470.

Bisoka, A. N. 2020. Disturbing the Aesthetics of Power: Why COVID-19 Is Not an “Event” for Fieldwork-Based Social Scientists. Social Science Research Council. Available at https://items. ssrc.org/category/covid-19-and-the- socialsciences/social-research-and- insecurity (accessed June 19, 2020).

British Psychological Society. 2017. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/ www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20%20Files/Ethics%20Guidelines%20for%20Internetmediated%20Research%20%282017%29.pdf.

Cater, J. 2011. Skype: A cost effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Journal 4 (2): 10 – 17.

Christia, F. 2021. Moving to Fieldwork in a Virtual Space. In Covid-19 and Fieldwork: Challenges and Solutions. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association.

Deakin, H & Wakefield, K. 2014. Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research 14(5): 603–616.

Demombynes, G., Gubbins, P., & Romeo, A. 2013. Challenges and Opportunities of Mobile Phone-Based Data Collection Evidence from South Sudan. The World Bank.

Ess, C., & Ha’rd af Segerstad, Y. 2019. Everything old is new again: The ethics of digital inquiry and its design. In A ̊ . Ma kitalo, T. E. Nicewonger, & M. Elam (Eds.), Designs for experimentation and inquiry: Approaching learning and knowingindigitaltransformation(pp. 179–196). Routledge.

Hadi, A. 2018. Bridging Indonesia’s Digital Divide: Rural Urban Linkages? Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik 22 (1) July 2018 (17-33) ISSN 1410-4946 (Print), 2502-7883 (Online) doi:10.22146/ jsp.31835.

Head, E. 2009. The ethics and implications of paying participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(4):335–44.

Holt, A. 2010.. Using telephone for narrative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Research 10 (1): 113-121.

Howlett, M. 2021. Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research 1-16. DOI: 10.1177/1468794120985691.

Hugman, R., Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. 2011. When ‘Do No Harm’ Is Not Enough: The Ethics of Research with Refugees and Other Vulnerable Groups. The British Journal of Social Work 41 (7): pp. 1271-1287.

Jenner, B. & Myers, K. 2019. Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: a comparison on in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 22(2): 165–177.

Johnson D, Scheitle, C. & Ecklund, E. 2019. Beyond the in person interview? How interview quality varies across in person, telephone, and Skype interviews. Social Science Computer Review. DOI: 10.1177/0894439319893612.

Jowett, A. 2020. Carrying out qualitative research under lockdown – Practical and ethical considerations. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/20/ carrying-out-qualitative-research- under-lockdown-practical-and-ethical- considerations/

Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. & Read, B. 2015. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles.Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, L., Kuhnt, J., & Steinert, J. I. 2020. Do no harm? Field research in the Global South: Ethical challenges faced by research staff. World Development 127 (2020) 104810 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2019.104810.

Kozinets, R.V. 2010. Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Sage

Leo, B., Morello, R., Mellon, J., Peixoto, T., & Davenport, S. 2015. Do Mobile Surveys Work in Poor Countries?

Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., Pittaway, E. (2007) Beyond ’Do No Harm’: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research. Journal of Refugee Studies 20(2): 299– 319.

Marcham, A., & Buchanan, E. 2012. The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Elsivier Press.

Marks, Z & Zakayo, A. 2021. An opportunity to Rectify Inequalities in Fieldwork. In COVID-19 and Fieldwork: Challenges and Solutions. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association.

Patton, M. Q. 2015. Qualitative researcher and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice, 4th edition. SAGE.

Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., et al. 2016. Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. SAGE Publications.

Seidman, I. 2013. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences, 4th edition. Teachers College Press.

Sullivan, J. 2012. Skype: an appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews? The Hilltop Review 6(1): 54– 60.

Susilastuti, DH, Abritaningrum, YT & H Murti, SWUH. 2020. Penelitian di tengah Pandemi Covid-19: Petunjuk Praktis. Pusat Studi Kependudukan UGM. Unpublished manuscript.

Teti, M., Schatz, E., & Liebenberg, L. 2020. Methods in the time of COVID-19: The vital role of qualitative inquiries. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920920962. https:// doi. org/10.1177/1609406920920962.

UNDP. 2018. Below the surface: Results of a WhatsApp Survey of Syrian refugees and host communities in Lebanon. Wood, E. 2007. Field research. In Boix C. and Stokes S (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford University Press, 127-146.

Zhang, W. & Watts, S. 2008. Online communities as a communities of practice: A case study. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (4): 55-7d1. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884255.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jp.71694

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 501 | views : 731

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Populasi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Copyright of Jurnal Populasi ISSN 0853-6202 (PRINT), ISSN: 2476-941X (ONLINE).


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Populasi Indexed by:

ROAD

web
analytics View My Stats