Online Observation process

As previously stated, the chosen websites/forums were observed over a twelve-week period (from mid-November 2015 to end of February 2016); member comments were recorded in every session. Mann et al. (2009, p.86) observed differences in scale in observational research citing Paccagnella (1997) who recorded and archived messages monthly over a six-month period (a total of 10 000 from 400 users). Secondly, Rodino (1997, cited in Mann et al., 2009) analysed observations over a ten-week period. This study therefore adopted the much shorter time scale (three months) based on the limited time available given the multi - methods approach adopted. The researcher observed each of the three sites once every week until a saturation point had been reached for each respective website (Glasser and Strauss, 1976, in Creswell, 2014; Kozinets, 2002). Sample threads and reflective notes were saved on a new word document each week until the end of the data collection period. In selecting the threads,

120 the researcher chose only threads with relevant content as well as unique postings of key forum members as defined by Arruda-Filho et al. (2011). A structured observation form (Illustrated in the Participant Profile, Appendix 12) as recommended by Creswell (2013) and Kozinets (2015) was used to record the comments stating observation times, duration, key themes as well as providing a sample of some the of threads. A reflective diary was also created to summarise weekly observations of select websites. Emerging themes (see Table 9.9) were recorded and then compared with those identified from the review of literature.

4.4.4.1 Respondent Selection and Sample

Members of the site comprised adults aged 18 years and above (only adult members registered on the site). A non-probability sampling approach was used to guarantee representativeness given chances of selection for any individual are uncertain (Brown, Suter and Churchill, 2008).

Bryman et al., (2015) recommends non-probability sampling where structured observations are used. Both convenience and judgemental sampling methods are chosen for the selection of online threads as recommended by Creswell (2014). To start with, choice of websites was based on them being readily available to the researcher [convenience] (Brown et al., 2008). For example, forums targeted at UK audiences (e.g. The BBC). In terms of actual forum and thread selection, a judgemental sampling approach was adopted, selecting only those posts featuring predefined key words as well as containing sufficient dialogue and engagement. Previous research by Kozinets (2002) on postings by members of an online coffee community used a purposive sampling approach; here carefully chosen message threads were selected where keywords such as location based services, apps, location based advertising were used by online members (see Table 4.4).

121 As seen in Table 4.4, other key selection criteria involved was observing the number of times each member posted or responded to posts by fellow members of the online group. Thus, how many times an individual member posts comments in response to other member posts. For example, we see in Table 4.5 how member ‘A’ responded three times while member ‘SIG’

responded four times to a thread on, “How can we manage this internet thing?” (See column four, row four- Table 4.5). Clearly some members were more active than others.

This insight on online member activity enabled the researcher to identify different user groups (e.g. ‘Involved Approach’, ‘Observer Approach’ and ‘Transactional Approach’) and corresponding experiences with LBS as shown in Table 5.9. A sample of the discussion threads chosen for this study is shown in Table 4.5. For example, A, AC and SIG were some of the key contributors on the site on LBS and mobile lifestyles (e-lifestyles) in a sample of 28 threads from the first five threads (see Table 4.5). Similarly, throughout the entire observation, these members remained active contributors to the forum discussions. In addition, various subjects ranging from LBS use, mobile device ownership, social networks and internet browsers were discussed where these key contributors participated. Therefore, these members were clearly knowledgeable about mobile and internet oriented services and communication and their adoption of LBS.

122 Table 4. 5: Sample Threads about LBS and E-lifestyles

Online

Exemplary Threads Key posters Number of

posts

1 1 Location Based

Advertising

Location Based Advertising grows up A (3 posts). 7

2 1 Privacy Apple details privacy policies for US Congressman A (2 posts). 4

3 11 Location Tracking

Location Based Reminders

Is iPhone data collection legal? Phorm Apple pie; Apple tweaks privacy to juice location tracking; location based reminders; where did Siri find info?

Hacker pilfers browser GPS location via router attack; Apple bans geo loco ads on IPhone, iPad*; Social networks breeding spatial junk;

location Based Services; the truth about LEAKY; Apple owners are the most loyal smartphone buyers; Apple must be tried for the bug in very fanboi’s pocket

Windows Phone 8: Everything you need to know at a glance; Google claims Wi-Fi slurp; Google now owns location advertising; ALERT!

There’ll be EMERGENCIES on TWITTER for UK, Ireland;38 states grill Google on three-year Wi-Fi slurp; iPhone compass evidence

123 4.4.4.1 Familiarizing with Online Community

Having identified relevant online communities to be observed, the researcher followed some of the guidelines by Kozinets (1998) and Creswell (2015). When adopting elements of a netnographic approach this research involved a three month ‘lurking’ period on the three sites.

A lurking approach was preferred to participant approach as it offers unobtrusive observation (Garcia, Standlee and Bechkoff, 2009). Similarly, Quinton and Harridge-March (2010) highlight how rich insights on both contributors (e.g. perceptions) and content can be obtained by scanning online communities. Creswell (2013) acknowledges the potential for deception of respondents while Kozinets (2002) sees problems with establishing informant identity. More elaborate guidelines on member checks are provided by Kozinets (2014) who adopts the principles of Tom Boellstorff and colleagues (2012, cited in Kozinets, 2015, p.128) in advising researchers to be wary of deceptive practises by respondents.

The researcher chose sites where members were required to provide names/identification labels making it relatively easier to identify respondents contributing on the site. Key contributors to the chosen sites were identified based on the number of followers, posts and responses to member questions. By observing the images on user profiles as well as user name (s) the researcher sought to identify any double posters. Thus, as far as is known, there were no visible double posters on the LBS forums. Boellstorff, Bonnie, Pearce and Taylor (2012, p.82-85) provide seven practical guidelines on keeping netnographic filed notes. And this study only followed four of these qualities:

I. Writing down things of interest that emerged during the interactions and experience which are then typed up in detail after each participant session. This is illustrated in Appendix 12

II. Taking screenshots of activity (these complement field notes per Kulavuz-Onal and Vasquez, 2013), and writing small commentaries as soon as each observation session finishes. In addition, word cloud maps were used as part of the NVivo analysis to illustrate key observation themes. See samples of actual postings in Appendix 12.

III. Writing observational notes, and interpretation of reflective field noting separate and distinct: keeping initial interpretation of an event, interaction and experience separate.

124 Given the inductive and emergent nature of online observation with netnographic elements (Kozinets, 2010); reflective notes were valuable, allowing the researcher to note down information pertaining to user experiences. This also is illustrated in Appendix 12. The researcher made use of full field notes at the end of each observation; allowing information about experiences (e.g. with LBS, emerging e-lifestyles and m-lifestyles), conversations to be recorded. These notes provided a summary of the observations and assisted in establishing emerging themes. Kozinets (2015, p.189) states that field notes, “provide key insights into how online social interactions function and transpire… very useful resource to turn to in data analysis when asking why a particular person made a particular graphic, photograph, message or posting at a particular time.” Secondly, field notes capture social experiences where the researchers’ recollection of subtle learning, socialization and acculturation may be diluted over time (Kozinets, 2015, p.190).

IV. Collecting ‘scrapbooks’ of online artefacts (collecting threads, pictures and symbols). This is also illustrated in Appendix 12 where pictures and online threads were presented. In addition, Wordle data sets were created to show key words as shown in Figure 32, Appendix 12.

Kozinets (2002) recommends that researchers follow a similar approach to grounded theory (Goulding, 2002; Kolb, 2012) where the researcher collects and analyses data simultaneously:

data collection continues if new insights emerge. Therefore, the researcher may still be participating in the online community during the final stages of the research to enable members of the online community to check out the researchers’ interpretation as well as to permit collaborative interpretation. However, the chosen websites in this research are in the public domain and as already established; there was no researcher introduction to the group. The data collection process continued until no new insights emerged from forums/group discussions.

The researcher therefore stopped observations after a twelve-week period when a saturation point had been reached. It was felt that limited further insight on initial awareness and experiences with location services of members was available.