Qualitative and Mixed Methods Social Media Research: A Review of the Literature
Chareen L. Snelson 1
Abstract Social media technologies have attracted substantial attention among many types of users including researchers who have published studies for several years. This article presents an overview of trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research literature published from 2007 through 2013. A collection of 229 qualitative studies were identified through a systematic literature review process. A subset of 55 of these articles report studies involving a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Articles were reviewed, analyzed, and coded through a qualitative content analysis approach. Overall trends are presented with respect to the entire collection of articles followed by an analysis of mixed methods research approaches identified in the subset of 55 studies. The most commonly used research approaches involved collecting data from people through interview, focus group, and survey methodologies. Content analysis was the second most commonly used approach whereby researchers use Facebook posts, Tweets (Twitter posts), YouTube videos, or other social media content as a data source. Many of the studies involving combinations of quantitative and qualitative data followed a design resembling Creswell and Plano Clarks basic mixed methods typology (e.g., convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential).
Keywords social media research, Web 2.0, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, mixed methods, qualitative
This article presents a descriptive methodological analysis of
qualitative and mixed methods approaches for social media
research. It is based on a systematic review of 229 qualitative
or mixed methods research articles published from 2007
through 2013 where social media played a central role. Publi-
cation trends are presented for the entire set of articles followed
by analysis of a subset of 55 studies that combined qualitative
and quantitative approaches consistent with an established
mixed methods typology (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011). The literature analysis is first contextualized by
presenting a brief overview of related scholarly activity in the
emerging field of social media research. This is followed by a
discussion of publication trends and methodologies applied in
this systematic literature review.
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined social media as . . . a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideolo-
gical and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow
the creation and exchange of User Generated Content (p. 61).
The emergence of social media technologies has been
embraced by a growing number of users who post text mes-
sages, pictures, and videos online (Duggan, 2013; Duggan,
Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). Reports of world-
wide social networking activity suggest that there were 1.96
billion users in 2015 with predictions of 2.44 billion users by
2018 (Statista, 2015). Of all the social networking sites, Face-
book, Twitter, and YouTube are among the most popular rank-
ing within the top 10 of a list of most heavily visited sites on the
web (Alexa, 2015). The combination of prolific user activity
and production of user-generated content has captured the
attention of scholars and researchers who seek to understand
social media and its role in contemporary society.
Considerable attention has been given to social media
research as evidenced by the expanding literature base and
growing number of comprehensive literature reviews, which
have been conducted to explore various facets of social media
research and scholarship. A matrix summary of 20 social media
literature reviews published from 2011 through early 2014 is
provided in Table 1. Although not a comprehensive list, each of
1 Department of Educational Technology, Boise State University, Boise, ID,
USA
Corresponding Author:
Chareen L. Snelson, Department of Educational Technology, Boise State
University, Boise, ID 83725, USA.
Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Qualitative Methods January-December 2016: 115 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1609406915624574 ijqm.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://ijqm.sagepub.com
the articles in Table 1 represents a systematic literature review
with the methodology for sampling and analysis clearly
described by the author(s). The range of topics covered across
the collection of literature review works reveals some of the
diversity in emphasis and fields of study from which the works
emerge. Some authors have focused on categorization of trends
in academic literature related to specific social media platforms
such as Facebook (B?achnio, Przepio?rka, & Rudnicka, 2013;
Caers et al., 2013; Hew, 2011; Manca & Ranieri, 2013; Nad-
karni & Hofmann, 2012; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012),
Twitter (Dhir, Buragga, & Boreqqah, 2013; Williams, Terras,
& Warwick, 2013), or YouTube (Snelson, 2011). Other studies
are grounded within a particular subject or field of study to
examine social media as it relates to topics such as adolescent
well-being (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014), health-care
professionals (Hamm et al., 2013), type 1 diabetes (Jones, Sin-
clair, Holt, & Barnard, 2013), tourism and hospitality (Leung,
Law, van Hoof, & Buhalis, 2013), or prediction of real-world
events (Kalampokis, Tambouris, & Tarabanis, 2013).
The prior literature reviews listed in Table 1 indicate that
much has already been covered on the subject of trends in
social media literature. Yet, there is little information about
trends in qualitative and mixed methods approaches to social
media research. Prior literature reviews have included discus-
sions of trends in research approaches but have provided a
more global classification of general trends (e.g., Best et al.,
Table 1. Systematic Literature Reviews on Social Media Topics.
Author(s) Emphasis of Review Field(s) of Studya Articles/Papers Reviewed
Best, Manktelow, and Taylor (2014)
Research on the effects of social networking on adolescent well-being
Sociology, social work, and social studies
43
B?achnio, Przepio?rka, and Rudnicka (2013)
Research focusing on the role of psychological traits in explaining Facebook use
Psychology 59
Caers et al. (2013) Peer-reviewed articles and papers on Facebook published between 2006 and 2012 that focus on personality of users
Psychology and economics
114
Dhir, Buragga, and Boreqqah (2013)
Empirical, conceptual, and theoretical studies on Twitter and its use in education
Education 43
Gholami-Kordkheili, Wild, and Strech (2013)
Research, commentaries, editorials, and opinion papers on medical professionalism and social media
Health care and medical 108
Hamm et al. (2013) Research on social media use by health-care professionals or trainees published between 2000 and 2012
Health care and medical 96
Hew (2011) Research focusing on the use of Facebook by students and teachers
Education 36
Jones, Sinclair, Holt, and Barnard (2013)
Research on the use of social networking to discuss the risks of Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Health care and medical 6
Kalampokis, Tambouris, and Tarabanis (2013)
Research where social media data were used to predict real- world phenomena
Information systems 52
Khan (2012) Research on social media systems published 2003 to 2011 Information systems 274 Khang, Ki, and Ye (2012) Social media research trends in four disciplines (advertising,
communication, marketing, and public relations) published 19972010
Advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations
436
Leung, Law, van Hoof, and Buhalis (2013)
Social mediarelated research articles in tourism and hospitality published between 2007 and 2010
Tourism and hospitality 44
Manca and Ranieri (2013) Research with a focus on Facebook as a learning environment
Education 23
Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012)
Research on the psychological factors contributing to Facebook use
Psychology 42
Park and Calamaro (2013) Studies where social network sites are used for recruitment, intervention, or measurement in health research of adolescents and young adults
Health care, medical, and nursing
17
Snelson (2011) Trends in academic literature about YouTube published between 2006 and 2009
Interdisciplinary 188
Van Osch and Coursaris (2014)
Social media research productivity based on journal articles and conference proceedings from October 2004 to 2011
Interdisciplinary 610
Williams, Terras, and Warwick (2013)
Twitter and microblogging research published from 2007 to 2011
Interdisciplinary 575
Wilson, Gosling, and Graham (2012)
Trends in research on Facebook Social science 412
Zhang and Leung (2014) Social networking research published in six high-ranking communication journals from 2006 to 2011
Communication 84
a Information in the Field(s) of Study column is based primarily on statement of purpose and content focus of each literature review article.
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
2014; Hamm et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013; Williams et al.,
2013). This literature review serves to expand the knowledge
base regarding how qualitative and mixed methods have been
applied to social media research. There are several reasons why
this might be important. Social media research is a relatively new
field of study that has emerged in conjunction with the develop-
ment of social media technologies and the upsurge in their use
(Duggan et al., 2015). Little is known about how many qualitative
and mixed methods social media studies have been published,
where they originate, or which academic journals publish them.
Furthermore, trends in the selection of research design, data col-
lection techniques, and analytic approaches are not well known.
The potential value of examining trends in the use of qua-
litative research approaches (e.g., interview, focus group, and
qualitative content analysis) lies in uncovering how researchers
design studies to gain insights into how and why people engage
with social media as well as the meaning that is attached to
experiences with social media. For example, Fox, Warber, and
Makstaller (2013) collected data from mixed-sex focus groups
to help them answer questions about the role of Facebook in
romantic relationship development. In another study, Greene,
Choudhry, Kilabuk, and Shrank (2011) conducted a qualitative
evaluation of posts from Facebook communities dedicated to
diabetes to reveal how patients, family members, and friends
share information and receive emotional support.
Mixed methods research approaches in which the
researcher gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and quali-
tative (open-ended) data, integrates the two and then draws
interpretations based on the combined strengths of both sets
of data to understand research problems (Creswell, 2014,
p. 2) also have potential value in social media research. For
example, Morgan, Snelson, and Elison-Bowers (2010) used qua-
litative analysis of social media content together with a survey to
uncover patterns of behavior and attitudes regarding depictions
of alcohol and marijuana use by young adults on social media
websites. As another example, Vyas, Landry, Schnider, Rojas,
and Wood (2012) combined a survey with follow-up interviews
to examine short message services and social media use among
Latino youth and the potential role of these services as methods
of communication in public health programs. These examples
illustrate the potential of qualitative and mixed methods research
approaches to uncover new insights through the complimentary
combination of methods. Yet, the question of how researchers
have been applying these approaches in social media studies has
not been explored in depth.
What this literature review contributes is a summary of
general trends in qualitative research studies together with a
more in-depth analysis of mixed methods approaches for social
media research. The overarching research questions guiding
this systematic literature review study were:
? What are the overall trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research?
? To what extent does the design of mixed methods social media studies align to an established typology for mixed
methods research?
Method
The central aim of this literature review was to identify trends
in qualitative and mixed methods approaches used in the emer-
gent field of social media research. The review is descriptive
and follows an integrative synthesis approach, which attempts
to summarize the contents of multiple studies and minimizes
any interpretation on the part of the reviewer (Harden &
Thomas, 2010, p. 752). The unit of analysis was a peer-
reviewed journal article reporting the results of a qualitative
or mixed methods research study where social media played a
central role. The scope of the literature review was limited to
articles published from 2007 through 2013. The reason for the
initial cutoff was that literature in the years before 2007 was
scant, given that social media is a relatively new phenomenon.
According to company websites, Facebook was invented in
2004 (Facebook, 2015), YouTube in 2005 (YouTube, 2015),
and Twitter in 2006 (Twitter, 2015). A previous literature
review on YouTube scholarship indicated that publications
began to appear in 2006, but no research studies were published
prior to 2007 (Snelson, 2011). Williams, Terras, and Warwick
(2013) selected 2007 as a starting point for their literature
review of Twitter and microblogging research because that is
when the first papers began to appear. Facebook research was
published as early as 2005 (Wilson et al., 2012) but seems to
have started building momentum in 2007. Therefore, the deci-
sion was made to set the initial cutoff at 2007 with a final cutoff
of 2013, which was the last full year before the review was
conducted in 2014.
Peer-reviewed journal articles were selected and analyzed
through a systematic process consistent with the prior litera-
ture review studies listed in Table 1. Selection and analysis of
articles proceeded through a series of the four stages illu-
strated in Figure 1.
Stage 1: Presearch
During the presearch phase, key words and databases were
selected based on a combination of (a) strategies used in prior
literature reviews and (b) test searches with candidate key
words, filters, and databases. Some of the prior literature
reviews focused on specific social media platforms (e.g., Face-
book, Twitter, and YouTube), whereas others investigated cer-
tain aspects of social media usage or content regardless of
platform. The present study integrates a combination of both
platform-specific and general search phrases to explore an
array of studies involving single or multiple types of social
media. The key words used were Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
social media, and social networking. Each of these search
phrases has been used in at least one prior literature review.
Many of the prior social media literature reviews were
grounded in a particular field of study. Searches were con-
ducted in combinations of databases, which sometimes
included databases indexing literature specific to the field
(e.g., PubMed for medical-related literature reviews). The
present literature review is interdisciplinary with a focus on
Snelson 3
trends in research methodology regardless of discipline.
Therefore, searches were conducted exclusively in the fol-
lowing multidisciplinary databases, which have all been used
in prior literature reviews: Academic Search Premier, Web of
Science, and Google Scholar. Together, they offer substantial
and complementary access to the academic literature from
multiple disciplines.
Stage 2: Search
The search was conducted in January 2014 for articles pub-
lished from 2007 through 2013 that had bibliographic entries
available in the selected databases. The specific strategy for
searching each of the databases (Academic Search Premier,
Web of Science, and Google Scholar) is outlined here in detail
to make them replicable for other researchers.
Academic Search Premier and Web of Science involved a
key word search conducted in a similar manner. Each of the
search phrases, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, social media,
and social networking, were entered one at a time in a series
of searches. Filers were applied with each round of searches to
retrieve peer-reviewed articles where the search phrase was
contained in the title. For example, the search for Facebook
articles was set to retrieve peer-reviewed articles with Face-
book in the title. Search results were exported directly from
each database in batches to the online version of EndNote
(Thompson Reuters, 2014a). At the time of searching, Aca-
demic Search Premier permitted export of 100 citations per
batch and Web of Science permitted export of 500 citations
per batch. All citations from each round of searches were
exported in batches until all of the results were copied into
EndNote online.
Google Scholar was included as one of the databases
searched for during this literature review due to its broad reach
across interdisciplinary academic scholarship indexed on the
Internet and its use in prior literature review studies (see
B?achnio et al., 2013; Dhir et al., 2013; Kalampokis et al.,
2013; Williams et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2012). Unfortu-
nately, Google Scholar has certain limitations. Williams et al.
(2013) searched Google Scholar for their literature review of
academic work related to Twitter but acknowledged the lack of
control over search fields and results containing many works
unrelated to the purpose of their research. An additional issue is
the sheer volume of results that might appear in a Google
Scholar search. Researchers might not have the time or
resources to sort through thousands of results to find articles
matching inclusion criteria for articles. Furthermore, Google
limits access to the first 1,000 search results (see Google,
2015), thereby making it impossible to access all of the results.
This limitation can be verified by clicking through to the last
page of a large set of search results.
The limitations with Google Scholar necessitated a modified
search strategy to obtain a manageable set of results that
yielded relevant articles not found through searches of Aca-
demic Search Premier and Web of Science. The lack of control
over search fields acknowledged by Williams et al. (2013) was
addressed by appending additional key words to restrict results
to relevant articles. As previously explained, the unit of anal-
ysis was a peer-reviewed journal article reporting the results of
a qualitative or mixed methods research study where social
media played a central role. Therefore, the search phrases were
adjusted to target both the type of social media and the type of
design in each round of searches. For example, the search for
Facebook literature was conducted in two rounds, with the
search phrase Facebook qualitative used in the first round fol-
lowed by Facebook mixed method in the second round. A sim-
ilar approach was used to search for literature on Twitter,
YouTube, social media, and social networking articles. This
targeted search produced a manageable results list but pro-
duced only eight relevant articles that were not already found
in the Academic Search Premier and Web of Science databases.
Google Scholar ultimately served as an ancillary search tool
that produced a few additional articles, but, in this particular
case, it created the problematic decision of whether to choose
(a) too many results that were labor-intensive to review and
could not be fully accessed or (b) a restrictive search that might
have limited the results to a narrower scope than desired. The
restrictive search option, although not ideal, was selected due
to its feasibility. Other researchers are encouraged to consider
the limitations of Google Scholar prior to using it to obtain
literature for a systematic review.
The process of removing duplicate citations was conducted
after the searches were complete and citations had been
imported into the online version of EndNote (Thompson Reu-
ters, 2014a). First, the duplicate removal tool was used to iden-
tify as many duplicates as possible that had been imported from
the different databases. This was followed by manual inspec-
tion of the citations to remove additional duplicates that had not
been entered into the databases in the same way. For example,
the author name or title might have been entered differently in
one database as compared to the others. The citations were
Figure 1. Stages in the literature review process.
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods
combined into a single group (minus duplicates), leaving a total
of 3,322 unique article citations.
Stage 3: Data Cleaning
Abstracts and full-text copies of the articles were reviewed to
determine eligibility for analysis. Articles were selected if they
met the following criteria: (a) the study applied qualitative
research methodology or mixed methods research with a qua-
litative research component, (b) the study emphasized online
social media, (c) the article was published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and (d) a full-text English copy of the article was
available. A total of 229 studies met the criteria with a subset
of 55 of these studies involving both qualitative and quantita-
tive (i.e., mixed) methods.
Stage 4: Analysis
A qualitative content analysis methodology, based on Schre-
iers (2012) approach, was used to structure the review and
analysis of the literature. Qualitative content analysis is a
descriptive research method involving development of a cod-
ing frame and qualitative coding of data. The coding frame was
both concept driven (defined in advance) and data driven
(derived from data during coding) as described by Schreier.
Essentially, the concept-driven part of the coding frame was
designed to classify studies according to research design (qua-
litative and mixed methods) and social media emphasized in
the research. The data-driven portion of the coding frame came
primarily from tagging and coding articles based on research
approaches used in the study, as will be discussed momentarily.
A single researcher conducted the present study; therefore, a
multiphase approach was taken to review the content at differ-
ent points in time and to cross-check results for consistency.
The articles had all been reviewed for eligibility for the study
during the data-cleaning stage, but the actual analysis of con-
tent began with a round of review and tagging using the Men-
deleys (2014) reference management software. Full-text
copies of the articles were obtained and imported into Mende-
ley where they were reviewed, bibliographic information was
verified, and tags were applied to each article to indicate type
of social media emphasized and research approaches used in
the studies. The tagging process served as a first round of
classification and coding.
To conduct the second round of coding, bibliographic infor-
mation first was exported from Mendeley in the Research
Information Systems file format. This text file was imported
into the NVivo (Version 10) qualitative analysis software pro-
gram (QSR International, 2014). This process accomplished
two goals: (a) it imported full-text copies of the articles into
NVivo and (b) it simultaneously created an internal classifica-
tion sheet (similar to a spreadsheet), which contained biblio-
graphic information that was linked to each imported article.
The classification sheet was created for the purpose of running
queries within NVivo and for export to Excel (Microsoft, 2014)
where further analysis of overall trends could be conducted.
Additional attributes (similar to spreadsheet columns) were
added to the classification sheet so that each article could be
categorized based on the social media emphasized in the study.
The labeled categories comprised Facebook, Twitter, or
YouTube for studies that focused on those specific social
media platforms alone. A Combination category was used to
label studies involving more than one type of social media that
included Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or some combination of
these platforms. A category for Other Social Media was
used to label studies involving other named social media plat-
forms such as MySpace. An Unspecified category was used
for studies that emphasized more general social media topics
where there was no specific mention of any particular social
media platform.
In addition to the categorization within the classification
sheet, each entire article was coded as a case node in NVivo
based on author names to facilitate the process of running
matrix queries of authors versus content. Next, content within
each article was coded based on the research approach applied
to conduct the social media study. A set of top-level nodes, set
at the highest point of a hierarchical node structure, was created
prior to analysis to serve as the concept-driven coding frame, as
discussed earlier. Nodes were created for qualitative and mixed
methods research studies. In addition, child nodes were created
under the mixed methods node for each of the mixed methods
research design types described by Creswell and Plano Clark
(2011). Nodes for specific approaches such as interviews, focus
groups, surveys, or content analysis were generated later when
they were identified during analysis and coding of the individ-
ual articles. Research approaches had already been tagged on
the articles in Mendeley during the first round of review, so the
NVivo coding was cross-checked with the Mendeley tags to
verify consistency. When discrepancies were observed, articles
were reviewed again to resolve these differences.
Trends across the set of tagged and coded literature were
identified through analysis of coded article text, matrix
queries of articles and codes, and information in the article
classification sheet. The classification sheet was exported
from NVivo as a spreadsheet for analysis in Excel where pivot
tables were created to generate charts and frequencies of pub-
lication trends.
Limitations and Delimitations
Prior literature reviews of social media research have described
limitations that are equally applicable to the current study.
Factors attributed to scope restrictions based on specific social
media platform, databases, types of literature (e.g., articles and
conference papers), languages, publications (e.g., specific jour-
nals), or use of specific search phrases have been discussed
(e.g., B?achnio et al., 2013; Gholami-Kordkheili, Wild, &
Strech, 2013; Khan, 2012; Khang, Ki, & Ye, 2012; Leung
et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2012; Zhang
& Leung, 2014). Restricting the scope of a literature review can
be beneficial in making the study feasible and focused. How-
ever, it also means that some literature will most likely be left
Snelson 5
out of the analysis. The same issue holds true for the present
study with its own restrictions on language, publication type,
databases, and search phrases. The restrictions and criteria for
inclusion should be communicated in literature reviews, as they
are here, to ensure that other researchers are made aware of
limitations impacting coverage. Furthermore, these details per-
mit replication or comparison among literature review studies.
The restrictions and selection criteria have been provided in the
method section earlier to ensure that these details are available
for interested researchers. In addition, a complete bibliography
of all of the studies included in this review, including a cate-
gorized list of mixed methods studies identified by the author,
is available online at https://sites.google.com/site/qualmix/
bibliography.
Strategies for describing, defining, or classifying mixed
methods research studies have been proposed through the
development of various typologies, models, or frameworks
(Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Guest, 2012;
Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Nastasi, Hitchcock, & Brown,
2010). The present literature review limits discussion to the
typology developed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). This
typology served as a useful tool for organizing and describing
timing and priority of data collection and analysis within social
media research.
Results and Discussion
The results of this systematic literature review study are orga-
nized in a general-to-specific manner. These
Read more
Applied Sciences
Architecture and Design
Biology
Business & Finance
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Education
Engineering
English
Environmental science
Spanish
Government
History
Human Resource Management
Information Systems
Law
Literature
Mathematics
Nursing
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Reading
Science
Social Science
Home
Homework Answers
Blog
Archive
Tags
Reviews
Contact
twitterfacebook
Copyright © 2021 SweetStudy.com
