References
- Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired, 23 [online]. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ [accessed 2019, February 4]. - Araujo, T., Wonneberger, A., Neijens, P. & de Vreese, C. (2017). How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(3): 173–190.
- Arthur, P. L. & Bode, K. (2014). Advancing digital humanities: Research, methods, theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bailenson, J. N. (2012). Doppelgangers: A new form of self. The Psychologist, 25(1): 36–39.
- Barbour, R. & Kitzinger, J. (eds.) (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice. London: Sage.
- Berry, D. (2012). Understanding digital humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Boyd, D. & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): 662–679.
- Carey, M. A. & Asbury, J.-E. (2012). Focus group research. New York: Routledge.
- Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
- Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16: 419–427.
- Dienlin, T. & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3): 285–297.
- Dourish, P. & Button, G. (1998). On “technomethodology”: Foundational relationships between ethnomethodology and system design. Human–Computer Interaction, 13(4): 395–432.
- Fetters, M. D. & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: Principles for bringing in the new and divesting of the old language of the field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1): 3–10.
- Fetveit, A. (2000). Den trojanske hest: Om metodebegrepets marginalisering av humanistisk medieforskning [The Trojan Horse: About the method concepts marginalization of humanistic media research]. Norsk Medietidskrift, 2: 5–27.
- Findahl, O., Lagerstedt, C. & Aurelius, A. (2014). Triangulation as a way to validate and deepen the knowledge about user behavior: A comparison between questionnaires, diaries and traffic measurements. In G. Patriarche, H. Bilandzic, J. Linaa Jensen & J. Jurisic (eds.), Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation (pp. 54–72). London: Routledge.
- Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. London: Sage.
- Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Giglietto, F., Rossi, L. & Bennato, D. (2012). The open laboratory: Limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as a research data source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4): 145–159.
- Greenberg, B. S., Eastin, M. S., Skalski, P., Cooper, L., Levy, M. & Lachlan, K. (2005). Comparing survey and diary measures of internet and traditional media use. Communication Reports, 18(1): 1–8.
- Halkier, B. (2010). Focus groups as social enactments: Integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Research, 10(71): 71–89.
- Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage Publications.
- Hutchinson, J. (2016). An introduction to digital media research methods: How to research and the implications of new media data. Communication Research and Practice, 2(1): 1–6.
- Iliadis, A. & Russo, F. (2016). Critical data studies: An introduction. Big Data & Society [online 2017].
- Jankowski, N. & Wester, F. (1991 [2002]). The qualitative tradition in social science inquiry: Contributions to mass communication research. In K. B. Jensen & N. Jankowski (eds.), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 44–74). London: Routledge.
- Jensen, K. B. (2012). Lost, found, and made: Qualitative data in the study of three-step flows of communication. In I. Volkmer (ed.), The handbook of global media research (pp. 435–450). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Jensen, K. B. (2014). Audiences, audiences, everywhere: Measured, interpreted and imagined. In G. Patriarche, H. Bilandzic, J. Linaa Jensen & J. Jurisic (eds.), Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation (pp. 227–240). London: Routledge.
- Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602–611.
- Kåhre, P. (2009). På AI-teknikens axlar: om kunskapssociologin och stark artificiell intelligens [On the shoulders of AI technology: about knowledge sociology and strong artificial intelligence]. Lund Dissertations in Sociology, 1102–4712; 87. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.
- Kihl, M., Lagerstedt, C., Aurelius, A. & Ödling, P. (2010). Traffic analysis and characterization of Internet user behavior. Paper presented at the conference International congress on ultra-modern telecommunications and control systems and workshop (ICUMT), 2010, October 18–20, Moscow.
- Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society 2014: 1–12.
- Kitchin, R. & Lauriault, T. (2014). Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. The Programmable City Working Paper 2. Programmable City, Social Science Research Network.
- Kitchin, R. & Lauriault, T. (2015). Small data in the era of big data. GeoJournal, 80: 463–475.
- Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
- Ladner, S. (2009). Watching the web: An ontological and epistemological critique of web-traffic measurement. In B. J. Jansen, A. Spink & I. Taksa (eds.), Handbook of research on web log analysis (pp. 504–520). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.
- Lagerstedt, C., Findahl, O., Aurelius, A., Pathirana, H. & Popp Larsen, C. (2012). Understanding Internet user behavior: Towards a unified methodology. International Journal of Advances in Telecommunications, 5(3–4): 153–163.
- Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. Sage: London.
- Lijadi, A. & van Schalkwyk, G. (2015). Online Facebook focus group research of hard-to-reach participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5): 1–9.
- Liu, A. (2013). The meaning of the digital humanities. PMLA, 128: 409–422.
- Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. London: Routledge.
- Mackey, A. & Grass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
- Mahrt, M. & Sharkow, M. (2013). The value of big data in digital media research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1): 20–33.
- Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Retrieved from
http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/trending-the-promises-and-the-challenges-of-big-social-data [accessed 2019, February 4]. - Manovich, L. (2012). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In M. K. Gold (ed.), Debates in the digital humanities (pp. 460–475). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
- Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Marwick, A. E. & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7): 1051–1067.
- Mehl, M. & Gill, A. (2010). Automatic text analysis. In S. Gosling & J. Johnson (eds.), Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research (pp. 109–127). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Menchen-Trevino, E. & Karr, C. (2012). Researching real-world web use with Roxy: Collecting observational web data with informed consent. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(3): 254–268.
- Miller, S. & Gatta, J. (2006). The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: Problems and prospects. Quality & Quantity, 40(4): 595–610.
- Mills, K. (2017). What are the threats and potentials of big data for qualitative research? Qualitative Research 18(6): 591–603.
- Morley, D. & Silverstone, R. (2002 [1991]). Media audiences, communication and context: Ethnographic perspectives on the media audience. In K. B. Jensen & N. Jankowski (eds.), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 149–162). London: Routledge.
- Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J. & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 20–32.
- Patriarche, G., Bilandzic, H., Linaa Jensen, J. & Jurisic, J. (eds.) (2014). Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation. London: Routledge.
- Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Rogers, R. (2015). Digital methods for web research. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–22). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Scharkow, M. (2016). The accuracy of self-reported Internet use: A validation study using client log data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1): 13–27.
- Schrøder, K. C., Hasebrink, U., Hölig, S. & Barker, M. (2012). Introduction: Exploring the methodological synergies of multimethod audience research. Participation Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2): 643–647.
- Simon, J. & Ess, C. (2015). The ONLIFE initiative: A concept reengineering exercise. Philosophy and Technology, 28(1): 157–162.
- Smith, J. H., Dinev, T. & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4): 989–1015.
- Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
- Stewart, K. & Williams, M. (2005). Researching online populations: The use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5: 395–416.
- Taksa, I., Spink, A. & Jansen, B. J. (2009). Web log analysis: Diversity of research methodologies. In B. J. Jansen, A. Spink & I. Taksa (eds.), Handbook of research on web log analysis (pp. 504––520). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.
- Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3): 253–258.
- Turney, L. & Pocknee, C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(2): 32–43.
- Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2): 197–208.
- Vicente-Mariño, M. (2014). Audience research methods: Facing the challenge of transforming audiences. In G. Patriarche, H. Bilandzic, J. Linaa Jensen & J. Jelena (eds.), Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation (pp. 37–53). London: Routledge.
- Williams, S., Giatsi Clausen, M., Robertson, A., Peacock, S. & McPherson, K. (2012). Methodological reflections on the use of asynchronous online focus groups in health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4): 368–383.