Using the Internet to conduct research.
ABSTRACT The internet has become an everyday communication tool for countless people throughout the world. It has a variety of potential uses in education, practice and research, but only in the last decade have nurse researchers begun to take advantage of the multiple uses the internet has to offer. The author reviews the uses of the internet to conduct research and addresses challenges and issues that currently influence web-based research.
- SourceAvailable from: Lesley Wilkes[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The increasing pervasiveness of the internet and social networking globally presents new opportunities and challenges for empirical social science researchers including those in nursing. Developments in computer-mediated communication are not static and there is potential for further advances and innovation in research methods embracing this technology. The aim of this paper is to present a reflexive account and critique of the use of social media as a means of data collection in a study that sought to explore the aesthetics of clinical leadership in contemporary nursing. In doing so, comparisons are drawn from using Twitter, Facebook and e-learning announcements as methods of recruitment and subsequent data collection via an online survey. The pragmatics of the internet and online social networks as vehicles for data collection are discussed. While questions remain about best practice to safeguard the scientific integrity of these approaches and the researchers and research participants who choose to participate, the potential exists for researchers to enhance and expand research methods without compromising rigour and validity. In the interests of sharpening thinking about this means of data collection dialogue and debate are needed on a range of research aspects including but not limited to pragmatics, new requirements in research training and development, legal and ethical guidelines and strengths and limitations encountered.Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia 06/2014; 21(2). DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2014.03.001 · 0.84 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Internet is increasingly being used as a data collection medium to access research participants. This paper reports on the experience and value of using web-survey software to conduct an eDelphi study to develop Australian critical care course graduate practice standards. METHODS: The eDelphi technique used involved the iterative process of administering three rounds of surveys to a national expert panel. The survey was developed online using SurveyMonkey. Panel members responded to statements using one rating scale for round one and two scales for rounds two and three. Text boxes for panel comments were provided. COLLECTING DATA AND PROVIDING FEEDBACK: For each round, the SurveyMonkey's email tool was used to distribute an individualized email invitation containing the survey web link. The distribution of panel responses, individual responses and a summary of comments were emailed to panel members. Stacked bar charts representing the distribution of responses were generated using the SurveyMonkey software. Panel response rates remained greater than 85% over all rounds. DISCUSSION: An online survey provided numerous advantages over traditional survey approaches including high quality data collection, ease and speed of survey administration, direct communication with the panel and rapid collation of feedback allowing data collection to be undertaken in 12weeks. Only minor challenges were experienced using the technology. Ethical issues, specific to using the Internet to conduct research and external hosting of web-based software, lacked formal guidance. CONCLUSIONS: High response rates and an increased level of data quality were achieved in this study using web-survey software and the process was efficient and user-friendly. However, when considering online survey software, it is important to match the research design with the computer capabilities of participants and recognize that ethical review guidelines and processes have not yet kept pace with online research practices.Nurse education today 03/2013; 33(11). DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.016 · 1.46 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: As the popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) increases, it is becoming important to find out more about the characteristics of e-cigarette users, why and how they use the product and whether e-cigarettes are used exclusively or in combination with conventional cigarettes. The objective of this study was to investigate patterns and effects of e-cigarette use and user beliefs about e-cigarette safety and benefits. DESIGN AND METHODS: E-cigarette users in Poland were recruited online and asked to participate in a web-based survey. The participants provided information on their smoking history, patterns of e-cigarette use, beliefs and attitudes regarding the product and information on concurrent use of conventional cigarettes. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 179 e-cigarette users. Almost all participants used e-cigarettes daily. E-cigarettes were primarily used to quit smoking or to reduce the harm associated with smoking (both 41%), and were successful in helping the surveyed users to achieve these goals with 66% not smoking conventional cigarettes at all and 25% smoking under five cigarettes a day. Most participants (82%) did not think that e-cigarettes were completely safe, but thought that they were less dangerous than conventional cigarettes. Sixty percent believed that e-cigarettes were addictive, but less so than conventional cigarettes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The participants primarily used e-cigarettes as a stop-smoking aid or as an alternative to conventional cigarettes, and the majority reported that they successfully stopped smoking. More data on e-cigarette safety and its efficacy in harm-reduction and smoking cessation are needed.Drug and Alcohol Review 09/2012; 32(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00512.x · 1.55 Impact Factor