Munich Business School logo

Call for Papers: Methodological approaches to the study of virtual environments…

…and online social networks

I just came across an interesting Call for Papers by the Graduate Journal of Social Science. As the title of this post indicates, it deals with methodological approaches to the study of virtual environments and online social networks. It therefore addresses one of the key questions I’ve been asking myself since I started my PhD. To my knowledge, no such compilation exists to date. The most accessible text that I have come across regarding this topic is Bernie Hogan’s Analyzing Social Networks via the Internet. If you’re interested, please have a look at the details below. Deadline for submission is March 15, 2011. I’m certainly looking forward to having a look at the full issue.

This special issue aims at mapping some of the methodological approaches to the study of virtual environments, and welcomes both theoretical and empirical analyses that address them. The interest here is in what methods graduate researchers choose to use, the problems they face in trying to use them and the ways in which these methods are being adapted in relation to these virtual sites of study. Graduate students doing empirical work on virtual worlds and online social networks from all disciplines are strongly encouraged to submit papers dealing with the processes of choosing, applying and critically evaluating their methods.

While we expect contributions to vary according to the particular focus of investigation, questions such as the following may be relevant: What are the advantages and disadvantages of these methods? Are such methods developed specifically for the study of virtual worlds and/or online social networks, or are they adaptations of traditional research methods in social sciences? Are there specific disciplines, theories, or academic frameworks that offer more suitable insights regarding such methods- or can using them suggest limiting the scope of this ‘new’ research environment?

Authors are encouraged to submit papers addressing questions such as:

  • How to choose a suitable method for the study of virtual worlds and/ or online social networks?
  • Methods for exploring the social and cultural aspects of virtual worlds and/ or online social networks.
  • Methods for exploring the technical aspects of virtual worlds and/ or online social networks.
  • Criteria for evaluating research on virtual worlds and/ or online social networks.
  • Simulations as research methods: problems, recommendations, evaluation.
  • Methods for collaborative research in virtual environments and/ or online social networks.
  • Ethical issues.
  • Immersion: do we need to be users of virtual worlds/ online social networks to study them?
via gjss.org

Hogan, B. (2008) Analyzing Social Networks via the Internet. In: N.Fielding, R.Lee and G.Blank (eds) The Handbook of Online Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Web 2.0 finds its payday by @McKQuarterly

I’ve commented on the McKinsey Web 2.0 surveys in an earlier blog post. McKinsey just published the outcome of this year’s research, comparing internally networked, externally networked and fully networked organizations. The result: Fully networked organizations perform better in terms of market share and profit margins. Study participants named faster access to knowledge, increased marketing effectiveness and reduced communication costs as some of the main advantages of technology adoption. The authors, Bughin and Chui, also report that more employees within the same organization are now making use of more Web 2.0 technologies compared to previous years. Positive feedback loops seem to facilitate organizational learning. McKinsey predicts that investments in these technologies are bound increase. This is in line with Gartner’s expectations.

There was one finding that I thought was particularly noteworthy: Self-reported market leadership correlated negatively with externally networked organizations. Market leaders tend to focus on internal collaboration, but shield themselves from external ties. The authors of the study suggest that this is to do with maintaining their leadership position. Market challengers, on the contrary, are more focused on external uses of Web 2.0 technologies to win clients over. Would you agree?

Building Theories from Case Study Research: A Mind Map

I am planning to use a case study approach for my next piece of research. Some of the key references for this type of study are Yin’s (2008) book on design and methods as well as Eisenhardt’s (1989) article on theory building. I’ve created a mind map of the latter article for personal use, however I’m happy to share it with you. I hope you do find it useful. If you’ve got suggestions for improvements, please drop me a line.

References:

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
  • Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

Reference Manager Overview

I’ve been an avid user of Zotero for a couple of years now and I’ve come to to really like the program with all its features. It’s helped me considerably compiling reference lists and going back to them when needed. The other day I gave a tutorial on research methods and, beforehand, I asked myself how many of our postgraduate students would be familiar with Zotero the like. It turned out that many of them weren’t. However, the possibilities reference managers offer seemed appealing to a lot of them and I’ve now had the first feedback from students trying different tools. The day before the tutorial I posted a question on Twitter and was pointed to an overview of reference managers by William Gunn, Mendeley‘s Community Manager. The overview was compiled by Martin Fenner, a medical doctor and cancer researcher at the Hannover Medical School. I’m planning to host another meeting with the same students at the end of the semester in order to see what value they have derived from the tools and how they’ve used them. I’ll keep you posted.

 
via blogs.plos.org

How to Hit the Enterprise 2.0 Bullseye by @amcafee

I mentioned Andrew McAfee and his book ‘Enterprise 2.0’ in an earlier blog post and would like to come back to him now. In Chapter 4 of his book, Andy introduces the notion of the Enterprise 2.0 Bullseye (see below graph). The logic of the bullseye builds on Granovetter’s (1973) and Burt’s (1992) work on the strength of weak ties and structural holes. Andy argues that the bullseye helps to focus Enterprise 2.0 efforts by distinguishing the different types of ties between people, or employees, and how these ties may be maintained or altered by the use of social software (which he calls ESSPs). Cooperation between close colleagues, or strong ties, may be facilitated by wikis, whereas social network sites are more suitable to maintain a large network of acquaintances, or loose ties. Blogs, in turn, are seen to be enablers for converting potential into actual contacts. Last but not least, there are forms of cooperation, for example in the case of prediction markets, when no tie between actors is present and yet the individuals involved can productively interact. There are a number of other studies that investigate the impact of ICT on social capital, yet Andy manages to match ties and technologies. This is an interesting step forward.

Media_httpandrewmcafe_slibr

via andrewmcafee.org

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360.

McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges. Harvard Business School Press.