2019
DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3963
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Facebook Secret Groups for Qualitative Data Collection

Abstract: The popularity of Facebook (FB) has led researchers to seek ways of using the social media platform in their empirical research. One approach is to use FB’s secret groups tool to conduct asynchronous online focus groups. In this research note, I outline the steps to using FB secret groups along with the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. I used FB’s secret groups function to conduct three asynchronous online focus groups. I recruited caregivers of children with sensory processing disorder or “sensory i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, synchronous, verbal interfaces without video can be achieved through phone conferencing or using audiovisual platforms with visual functions disabled. Discussion forums and social media platforms allow for text based only interaction, often used asynchronously, affording participants the flexibility to contribute at their convenience whilst allowing time to consider their responses (Ferrante et al 2016;Medley-Rath 2019). Combinations of these interfaces are also possible within one focus group, for example, should individual participants choose not to use their video in an audiovisual group or when software includes a function which enables text-based commentary during audio and/or visual discussions.…”
Section: Focus Group Interactions In a Modern Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly, synchronous, verbal interfaces without video can be achieved through phone conferencing or using audiovisual platforms with visual functions disabled. Discussion forums and social media platforms allow for text based only interaction, often used asynchronously, affording participants the flexibility to contribute at their convenience whilst allowing time to consider their responses (Ferrante et al 2016;Medley-Rath 2019). Combinations of these interfaces are also possible within one focus group, for example, should individual participants choose not to use their video in an audiovisual group or when software includes a function which enables text-based commentary during audio and/or visual discussions.…”
Section: Focus Group Interactions In a Modern Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But in some studies, no adverse effects on data richness using video conferencing as an alternative to face to face communication was perceived (Kite & Phongsavan 2017;Flynn et al 2018;Matthews et al 2018). Text only based options can be conducted both synchronously (Wettergen et al 2016;Woodyatt et al 2016) and asynchronously (Ferrante et al 2016;Medley-Rath 2019).…”
Section: Focus Group Interactions In a Modern Worldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The private Facebook group belongs neither to the educational institution nor the participants. It belongs to the facilitator [25]. The accompanying Messenger app permits messages to be sent to Facebook friends.…”
Section: Private Facebook Groups' and Zoom's Relevant Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only Reddit though possesses the abilities to create an anonymous username and a private discussion community through which a focus group could be conducted. Facebook, one of the most popular websites globally, does have the ability to create private groups where focus groups can be conducted, although these private groups lack anonymity as the identities of the participants are known to each other (Medley-Rath, 2019). In one study using Facebook private groups, the researchers “friended” each participant to invite them to an asynchronous focus group in which the participants where able to see the identities of the other participants (Lijadi & van Schalkwyk, 2015).…”
Section: Online Platform Optionsmentioning
confidence: 99%