Challenges facing online research: Experiences from research concerning cyber-victimisation of people with disabilities

Alhaboby, Zhraa A.; Barnes, Jim; Evans, Hala; Short, Emma

doi:10.5817/cp2017-1-8

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Geographical and physical accessibility barriers to face-to-face participation, often faced by PWD, are reduced (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Moore et al, 2015; Sullivan, 2012; Suri & Patel, 2019; Turney & Pocknee, 2005). Additionally, online methods can promote inclusivity of vulnerable adults and marginalized groups by minimizing social and emotional barriers (Alhaboby et al, 2017; Mann & Stewart, 2000). However, online research excludes those without access to the internet and a level of technological competence (Jowett et al, 2011), and internet access is not equally distributed across the population (Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Helsper, 2008; Oringderff, 2004).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, it has been suggested that the removal of non-verbal cues and need for transcriptions in email-interviewing and text-based focus groups could reduce the researcher bias during interpretation, thus yielding a more authentic representation (Bampton & Cowton, 2002; Jamison et al, 2018; Seymour, 2001). Additionally, it has been implied that more authentic narratives can be seen in text-based online research due to the sense of anonymity in online interactions (Alhaboby et al, 2017; Bargh et al, 2002; Ellison et al, 2006). The relative anonymity of text-based methods arguably encourages disclosure (Egan et al, 2006; Jamison et al, 2018; Joinson, 2005; Shepherd, 2003), and therefore text-based methods may be better suited to discussing sensitive topics (Forrestal et al, 2015; McCoyd & Kerson, 2006).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury

Topping

Douglas

Winkler

2021

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative methodology is key to understanding the lived experience of people with acquired brain injury (ABI). However, as demonstrated during the global pandemic (COVID-19), face-to-face interviewing is not always viable. This lack of availability has been particularly relevant for people with disability who are at increased risk of contracting the virus and experiencing poorer outcomes. Fortunately, advancing technologies provide increasing opportunities for communicating online, thus it is plausible for qualitative disability researchers to adapt to remote interviewing. People with ABI often experience varying degrees of cognitive and communication impairments and therefore require specific considerations in the planning of research projects. In this paper, we examine learnings from existing literature around online qualitative research, specifically for videoconference, focus groups and email-interviewing methods. The key aim is to map out the practical, ethical and methodological considerations when adapting research to an online environment. As interviewing people with ABI online has received little attention in the literature, learnings from broader disability populations and the general population inform much of the considerations. Thus, the suggestions for practice are likely to be relevant to a broader population, but specific implications for people with ABI are discussed. Overall, we propose that it is viable, and sometimes preferable, to utilize online interview techniques but researchers must take care to consider the practical, ethical and methodological implications of doing so.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury

Topping

Douglas

Winkler

2021

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Just as social inequalities shape digital inequalities, they also affect vulnerability to cybercrime. Connected individuals with disabilities, for example, are disproportionately subjected to harassment, stalking, bullying, and disability-related hate crimes in cyberspace (Alhaboby, et al, 2017). As we will see in the next section, cybercrime disproportionately victimizes members of disadvantaged groups, who are typically less skilled yet more likely to use unsecured (often free) networks that may expose them to cyberthreats.…”

Section: Digital Intersections With Criminal Justice and Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the information age

Robinson¹,

Schulz²,

Dunn³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marking the 25th anniversary of the “digital divide,” we continue our metaphor of the digital inequality stack by mapping out the rapidly evolving nature of digital inequality using a broad lens. We tackle complex, and often unseen, inequalities spawned by the platform economy, automation, big data, algorithms, cybercrime, cybersafety, gaming, emotional well-being, assistive technologies, civic engagement, and mobility. These inequalities are woven throughout the digital inequality stack in many ways including differentiated access, use, consumption, literacies, skills, and production. While many users are competent prosumers who nimbly work within different layers of the stack, very few individuals are “full stack engineers” able to create or recreate digital devices, networks, and software platforms as pure producers. This new frontier of digital inequalities further differentiates digitally skilled creators from mere users. Therefore, we document emergent forms of inequality that radically diminish individuals’ agency and augment the power of technology creators, big tech, and other already powerful social actors whose dominance is increasing.

show abstract

“…Internationally, higher rates of victimization have been reported for people with intellectual disabilities, related to violence, injury, abuse and sexual crimes, 42,43 personal and property offenses, and crimes of cyber victimization. 44 Thus, when compared to the general population, people with IDD are more often victims of crime and abusive incidents. 45 In addition, fears associated with victimization and exploitation are significant concerns for people with IDD and their families.…”

Section: Victimization and Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

A nurses’ ethical commitment to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This article explores the issues of knowledge deficits of healthcare professionals in meeting the needs of people with IDD throughout the life span, and to identify factors that contribute to these deficits. Although statistics vary due to census results and the presence of a “hidden population,” approximately 1%–3% of the global population identify as living with an intellectual or developmental disability. People with intellectual or developmental disability experience health inequities and confront multiple barriers in society, often related to the stigma of intellectual or developmental disability. Disparities in care and service are attributed to a lack of knowledge and understanding among healthcare providers about people with intellectual or developmental disability, despite their increased risk for chronic health problems. The near absence of educational programs in nursing both nationally and internationally contributes to this significant knowledge deficit. In addition, ethical considerations between paternalistic beneficence and idealized autonomy have resulted in a lack of clear direction in working with a population that is often ignored or exploited. Nurses who view people with intellectual or developmental disability as vulnerable without assessing or acknowledging their capabilities may err toward paternalism in an effort to “first do no harm.” Likewise, nurses who fail to recognize the challenges and limitations faced by people with intellectual or developmental disability may not provide sufficient protections for a vulnerable person. People with intellectual or developmental disability are not binary, but rather complex individuals with a myriad of presentations. This article seeks to encourage a well-informed model of nursing care. Through an ethical lens, this article explores the nurse’s ethical commitments in cases of victimization, access to care, decision making, and the provision of optimal end-of-life care for people with intellectual or developmental disability.

show abstract

Challenges facing online research: Experiences from research concerning cyber-victimisation of people with disabilities

Cited by 14 publications

References 67 publications

General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury

General Considerations for Conducting Online Qualitative Research and Practice Implications for Interviewing People with Acquired Brain Injury

Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the information age

A nurses’ ethical commitment to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About