Reflections on Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

In this blog post I will not discuss all the qualitative methodologies, but I will rather focus on the narratives, interviews and focus groups.

The first research paper that I chose was called Situating Internet Use: Information-Seeking Among Young Women withBreast Cancer. The qualitative methodology used in this paper was narratives, which I found to be a really interesting one. In my previous post I discussed that I consider narratives as a form of interviews, but after the first seminar I understand that narratives is a different type of qualitative methodology that can provide us with valuable insights and deeper understanding. During the seminar we discussed that the general idea for narratives is to see a story as source of information for a specific research. Narrative research uses field texts, such as stories and life experiences as the units of analysis. A benefit of this methodology is that the participants have the opportunity to narratize their experiences in ways that are personally meaningful to them. On the other hand, it might be time consuming to organize and collect only the relevant information according to the research topic. It was interesting to find out that that narratives could also be used in telling the results of a research.

At the first seminar we also discussed the interviews because the majority of the chosen research papers used this methodology. Interviews can provide an in-depth understanding of personal experiences and viewpoints that can contribute to research. Interesting and unexpected topics might emerge from semi-structured and open-ended interviews, which might lead to new insights and further knowledge. An advantage of using face-to-face interviews is the possibility to get non-verbal data from interviewees, while an advantage of online interviews is that it might be easier to reach a larger number of participants. On the other hand, in online interviews it is more difficult to ask follow-up questions and provide explanations and clarifications to the participants. The disadvantages of using interviews is that it is time consuming to transcribe the material. Plus, I agree with the argument that there is a risk of the interviewer unconsciously influencing the interviewee.

Focus groups is another interesting methodology. Even though I find it valuable, I have to note that I agree with the arguments about the risks related to the dynamics of the group. Some participants might dominate the discussion. Therefore I believe in the importance of an experienced moderator who can make sure that there is a balance in the discussion and that it stays in focus-according to the researched topic.

I noticed that the majority of the chosen research papers which used qualitative methodologies were published in the same journals, with a focus in social science research. I understand that qualitative methodologies are used when researchers try to answer to the question why. They can provide in-depth understanding of a phenomenon.

I also want to briefly discuss the case study research. I would like to note that it is not always explicit that a research paper uses case study research. In case studies the focus is in one setting. From discussions during the second seminar I realized that even though it is unusual, case studies can also be based on one person. The researchers can also examine multiple case studies. In the typical case study research, there is a combination of methodologies- triangulation is a technique that facilitates validation of data that was received from more than two sources. Case studies are helpful in getting a deeper understanding about a phenomenon. They can be used for various reasons: to provide descriptions, test theories and generate theories. 

REFERENCES:

Balka, E., Krueger, G., Holmes, B. J. and Stephen, J. E. (2010). Situating Internet Use: Information-Seeking Among Young Women with Breast Cancer. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, pp. 389–411.

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

Situating Internet Use:Information-Seeking Among Young Women with Breast Cancer (Balka, Krueger, Holmes and Stephen, 2010).

Published in: the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Impact Factor: 1.778)

In this paper they explore the utilization of the Internet as a means of health information consumption among young women with breast cancer who were known Internet users.

Most of the study was conducted online.

The qualitative methodology used in this study was the interview-I would characterize them as unstructured/ semi-structured interviews- in the form of narratives. The 35 participants wrote the narratives, where they expressed their experiences. Predetermined sentence stems were provided to enable the participants to think and write what they needed at certain points in their diagnosis and treatment trajectory. 

The narrative information that was collected from study participants was analyzed with the aid of NVivo- qualitative data analysis software. The narratives were coded when they were received.

The benefits of using narratives is that they provide in depth understanding of personal experience and viewpoint. This light lead to information expected or valuable new insights and understanding. Since most of the study was conducted online, the participants could write their narratives when it was convenient for them. Plus, the material was already transcribed, which is a time consuming procedure. The participants were able to express themselves in ways that were meaningful to them, rather than imposing pre-assigned response categories on their experiences.

The limitation of using this type of qualitative methodology is that it is time consuming to collect the data and to analyze them. It is difficult and time consuming to filter the useful data from the useless ones. But since in this study the researchers provided the guidelines, it was easier for the participants to understand what was needed and discuss it. A disadvantage of using online interviews is that it is inconvenient to ask follow-up questions or clarifications. Additionally, body language and other useful information cannot be obtained through observation.

Qualitative methodologies can provide specific, detailed and in depth information and deeper understanding about behaviors and opinions. In this paper, we obtained valuable information on why and when young women with breast cancer use internet and how they don’t value internet as the most trusted source of information.  

What is a case study?

According to Eisenhardt (1989: 534), “The case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings.” Case studies can involve one or multiple cases and numerous levels of analysis. Case studies can be used for various reasons: to provide description, test theories and generate them.

 The tweets that killed a university: A case study investigating the use oftraditional and social media in the closure of a state university (Kelling, Kelling and Lennon, 2013)

Published in: the journal Computers in Human Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.067)

The case study research method is used to investigate how various forms of media were used by young people in the discussion of significant events. Specifically, the researchers investigated the use of social and traditional media by college students regarding the closure of the state University of South Florida Polytechnic (USFP).

An online survey was combined with social and online media monitoring to access the topics, authors and methods used during the discussions about the closure of USFP.

One of the strengths of this paper is the combination of methodologies to collect and analyze the data. This allows for strengthening the grounding of the theory and for the synergistic view of evidence (Eisenhard, Ibid: 533).

Novelty is another strength (Ibid). This case study tested a theory- the assumption that social media was a tool for younger adults. According to the findings, social media played an important role in the discussion and Twitter was the most common format used, but it was mostly used by people working in the media sector. Interestingly enough, students instead relied on traditional sources to gather information. This case study showed that it is incorrect to automatically assume younger demographic authorship or utilization of social media technology. The researchers note overall the data present an unexpected result (Ibid: 2662), which was in contrast with general assumption and previous literature. So, compared to conflicting literature, it builds internal validity; it raises theoretical level and it sharpens construct definitions (Eisenhard, Ibid).

On the other hand, as in all case studies, we are facing the danger of the generalizability of the results due to the examination of a specific population and/ or incident in a specific context. As Eisenhard (Ibid) mentions, the case study is a bottom up approach and the risk is that the theory describes an idiosyncratic phenomenon. Young people in studying in another University and living in another continent might use social media more than traditional ones, or they might be the most active users of twitter.

REFERENCES

Balka, E., Krueger, G., Holmes, B. J. and Stephen, J. E. (2010). Situating Internet Use: Information-Seeking Among Young Women with Breast Cancer. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, pp. 389–411.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14(4), pp. 532-550.

Kelling, N. J. , Kelling, A. S., Lennon, J. F. (2013). The tweets that killed a university: A case study investigating the use of traditional and social media in the closure of a state university. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29(6), pp. 2656-2664. 

Reflections on Theme 5: Design Research

The theme of this week was Design Research and it involved reading two design research papers: Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses (Fernaeus and Jacobsson, 2009) and Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration (Réhman, Sun, Liu, and Li, 2008). I found the readings quite straightforward. In both papers it was explained in detail how and why the research and the prototype were designed in the specific ways and with the specific functions. As I wrote in my previous blog post, the techniques and methods were explicitly described.

Coming from a theoretical background, I would have to say that it wasn’t easy to grasp some concepts and understand all the technical details. Nevertheless, I found this week’s theme quite interesting, mainly because it provided me with a new understanding of research. By reading the papers and attending the lectures, I realized that designing research is another way of scientific studies, which I did not really consider as such before. Gregor (2006) notes that design and action is a theory type, which discusses how to do something. Design research can provide valuable insights and understandings, ideas, proof of concepts and artifacts which can further the development of knowledge and sciences.

Ylva Ferneaus discussed the difference between design research and research. In the first one, we are based on grounding existing literature, scientific research and projects. Analysis, deeper understanding, critical reflection on implications and challenges are part of the designing research process. It takes place within the scientific context. It is important to convince with facts the research community about the validity of your findings and your theories. Your ideas go through a procedure of scrutiny and checkups in order to be accepted. Research on the other hand doesn't have to be grounded on existing research and literature, neither do the researchers have to share their ideas.  What I got from Ylva’s lecture is that design research is not always about commercialization of ideas.

According to me, Haibo Li discussed design research from a different perspective. Focus was placed on the marketization and commercialization of an idea. There are different steps in design research: how to come up with a good idea, how to filter it, how to validate it, how to evaluate it and how to communicate it.  The process involves the definition of the right problem and then we will be able to find a solution. Technical evaluation is important, but math is not enough. After all, there are too many ideas out there. You need a business mind to be able to evaluate if it your idea is a breakthrough technology and it is has business potential. The proof of concept enable us to validate the idea, while building a prototype plays the crucial role of evaluation. For the technical communication of the idea it is important to have an entrepreneurial spirit. Innovation training is helpful in enabling us to communicate our knowledge.

We also discussed the necessity of the usability analysis. We should evaluate the usability of a system, design, idea in a scientific way. Usability is defined as the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments (Réhman, Sun, Liu, and Li, 2008).

The lectures enabled me to understand that design research is not restricted in quantitative methodologies. Qualitative methodologies can also be used and they can provide us with a deeper explanation of some phenomena.

To conclude, during this week I re-evaluated design research and I better understood its importance in the advancement of knowledge.

REFERENCES:

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

Fernaeus, Y. & Jacobsson, M. (2009). Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. New York: ACM.

Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033.

Theme 5: Design research

This week we have to reflect on the key points of design research from reading two papers. In both papers artefacts were designed. It was thoroughly explained how and why they designed the artefacts in the specific way and with the specific functions. It was explicitly described what kind of techniques and methods were used. According to Gregor (2006), this a Design and Action theory type, which describes how to do something.  

Comics,Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses (Fernaeus and Jacobsson, 2009)

This paper concerns the design of physical languages for controlling, programming and predicting the behavior of robotic consumer products. Here, the researchers introduce the design concept of actDresses- e.g. using physical clothing, accessories and labels-  and develop new physical languages  based on semiotic theories in the fields of comics and fashion. The concept of actDresses was supplemented by three interaction scenarios designed for different kinds of robotic artefacts:

Case 1: Role assemblage outfits for Pleo, which is a robotic baby dinosaur.

Case 2: A behavior pin collection for GlowBots- a collection of robots with round LED-displays, acceleration sensors for user-interaction, protocols for robot-robot communication.

Case 3: Comic Signs for a commercial vacuum cleaning robot.  

What I got from reading this paper is that designing artefacts involves combining theories from different areas. It is important to discuss what kind of theories the researchers build their theory on, why those theories are used, as well as describe explicitly how the artefact was designed.  Artefacts are used in order to test new designs and thus enhance precision and understating about a phenomenon, provide us with insights. Since it was discussed that future research could examine many more scenarios (Ibid: 8), we could argue that design research contributes to science by producing artefacts, models and methods that can be used in future research as knowledge base (Hevner et al. in Gregor, …).

Turn YourMobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration (Réhman, Sun, Liu, and Li, 2008)

Here they design an experimental system and carry out tests to show that vibration could be used as means of rendering live dynamic information for mobile phones.

Role of prototypes in research and necessity to develop a proof of concept prototype

A prototype is a first design of something that was built in order to test hypotheses and prove them. Prototypes are used in research in order to test new designs and thus enhance precision and understanding of a phenomenon. In the concluding remarks of this paper it is noted that rendering information by vibration on mobile phones was rather new for both the researchers and the mobile users (Ibid: 1032). What I understand from reading this paper is that prototypes are used when researching a topic that was not the focus of prior research. So, a design that will allow us to test specific characteristics might not exist. Therefore, it is important to develop and design a prototype because prior literature has not dealt with this phenomenon. And as I previously discussed, designing prototypes contributes to research by producing artefacts, models, methods that can be used as knowledge base in future research.

In contrast to theorizing about something, a prototype provides results and specific information from experiments. 

Prototypes enable us to evaluate the usability of a system, model and design. Usability is defined as the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments. Based on the results of the experiments, researchers can replicate the design or change some characteristics in order to build the intended design.

What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

The characteristics of prototypes is they are new and self-designed by researchers in order to be able to test hypotheses and theories through experiments. By designing and testing prototypes we are able to evaluate the usability of something. In this research they proposed a new method and they showed that vibration could be used as means of rendering live dynamic information for mobile phones. 

In general, designing and testing prototypes might be time-consuming and it might turn out to be a failure. Researchers then could try to understand the limitations of prototypes in order to simulate the characteristics of their intended design. What is important is that we can get valuable insights and learn from this procedure.

From this paper, I understand that the limitations of prototypes is that each prototype has different characteristics, which are related to the focus of the research, and that they examine a narrow scenario. Additionally, it was noted that one test prototype is not enough to convince users to buy a product. Further research and designs are necessary. Plus, designing a prototype is a challenging and costly procedure. In this case, it was necessary adoption of training processes.

REFERENCES:

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

Fernaeus, Y. & Jacobsson, M. (2009). Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. New York: ACM.

Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033.

Reflections on Theme 4: Quantitative Research

This week’s theme was quantitative research. It involved reading the paper Physical activity, stress, andself-reported upper respiratory tract infection (Fondell et al., 2010), selecting a paper where quantitative methodologies were used in a good way, discussing and critically reflecting on quantitative methodologies, their benefits and limitations.

I believe that the seminar exercise, where we had to develop a model and show the relationship between the researched phenomena, was helpful in my understanding that in quantitative papers, researchers usually look for patterns and relationships between phenomena. 

The benefit of quantitative methodologies is that researchers are able to collect statistical data and thus test and prove their hypotheses. If data do not prove the hypothesis, then researchers might be led to interesting insights. The limitations of quantitative methodologies concern the reliability and validity of the data and the results and thus the conclusions of the studies. Another limitation could be the inability to generalize results. Further research is usually necessary. 

Similarly, qualitative methodologies have both benefits and limitations. Researchers might argue for the use of either qualitative or quantitative methods, but after the readings and the discussions of this week I realized that all methodologies have their limitations. Taken this into account, the researchers evaluate the methodologies and chose the one that they think is appropriate for the specific topic. During the week I was wondering if a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies would be provide richer results and better insights.

Having worked with online questionnaires enabled me to understand how demanding a procedure it is to design a questionnaire, formulate the right questions, send it out to a representative sample, getting a good response rate, using the right tools to understand, analyze and interpret the results. Based on my previous work experience and on discussions about quantitative methodologies during this week, I came to the following conclusions:

An important factor of statistical and online surveys is the design of questionnaires and how questions are formulated. During the lecture we discussed that questions should be carefully structured and that the questionnaires should be tested in order to avoid misunderstandings and mistakes that could affect the data and the results.

During this week, I confirmed my prior thoughts that it is difficult to generalize results of a survey. At the seminar we discussed the problem of generalizing results because the number of participants was considered to be small and because studies were conducted in specific contexts. Finding a representative sample is a demanding procedure. And in most of the selected papers, we concluded that further research is needed and/or that the study should be replicated in different communities.

Simon discusses in his blog post, and I agree with him, that interpreting the results involves statistical knowledge. Interpreting statistical data and explaining results in the right way is certainly not an easy procedure. It demands specific knowledge and use of specific programs. I think that weighing data is an important factor of reliability and validity of results. 

During the seminar, we also discussed the importance of researchers thoroughly explaining their methodologies. Not only is it important for the peer review process, but this way readers can also critically reflect on the study and its results. Plus, future research can use the same methodologies in different environments and test the hypotheses in different contexts. This might lead to the generalization of results.

To conclude, I believe that all methodologies have benefits, as well as limitations. I don't think that there is one right methodology. I would rather say that choosing the right methodology depends on the focus of the researched subject. 

REFERENCES

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

Kim, J. and Haridakis, P. M. (2009), The Role of Internet User Characteristics and Motives in Explaining Three Dimensions of Internet Addiction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 988–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01478.x

Theme 4: Quantitative Research

The Role of Internet User- Characteristics and Motives in Explaining Three Dimensions of Internet Addiction (Kim and Haridakis, 2009)

Published in: the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication ( Impact Factor: 1.778)

The researchers examined how users' background characteristics, motives, and the amount of Internet use contribute to Internet addiction. They identified three possible dimensions of internet addiction: intrusion, escaping reality and attachment. The results suggest that motives and users’ background are important potential factors to internet addiction.

The sample included 203 undergraduate students and the study took place in the USA. All participants were required to use internet.

The quantitative methodologies and measurements used in this study were designed based on previous studies, mainly on addiction in substance and media related contents-Internet and television. The participants answered questionnaires with the following measurements: Internet addiction, time spent using Internet, motives for using Internet and their background characteristics-locus of control, participants' self-esteem, shyness, loneliness and sensation-seeking.

The benefits of using these questionnaires with various scales is that the researchers were able to collect quantitative data so that they could test and prove their hypotheses on the role of internet users’ characteristics and motives in internet addiction. Then, hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the contribution of users' background characteristics, motives, and the amount of Internet use to predicting each of the three dimensions of Internet addiction that was identified: Intrusion, escaping reality, and attachment.

A limitation of the methodologies used is that the findings of this study on college students cannot be generalized, since only one community was examined. Furthermore, the researchers state that Internet evolving use and functions may require more up-to-date measures of variables (Ibid: 1009).   

While these scales and the reasoning for using them, as well as how the quantitative data of this study were worked is thoroughly explained, it is not clearly specified if the participants replied to these questions online or on written papers.

What I learned about quantitative methods from this paper is that no matter how well research methodologies and measurements are designed and even though statistical data are valuable, when they depend on humans living in a specific context, it is difficult to generalize the results. When it comes to social sciences, further research is necessary. Plus, the collected data, their presentation and interpretation depend heavily on the researchers’ agendas and the design of the methodology.

The main methodological problems of this study is that some of these measurements were outdated. More up-to-date measurements might be more appropriate. Furthermore, the results cannot be generalized since only one specific community was examined. If more communities were researched, we might have different data.

Physical activity, stress, and self-reportedupper respiratory tract infection (Fondell et al., 2010)

This paper examines the relationship between physical activity and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and the possible interactive relationship between physical activity, perceived stress and self-reported URTI. The study population was 1509 Swedish men and women aged 20-60. Quantitative data were collected from online questionnaires and follow up questionnaires that lasted 4 months. According to the results high levels of physical activity were associated with a reduced risk of self-reported URTI for both sexes. Additionally, highly stressed men appeared to benefit more from high levels of physical activity than people with lower stress.

The benefits of using quantitative methods is that the researchers can test a hypothesis. If the statistical and quantitative data agree with this hypothesis, the researchers can prove it. If not, the results might lead to something unexpected, to something that was not thought of before; it might lead to the understanding of a gap that could be researched in the future.

On the other hand, statistical data are just data. They do not provide understanding or explanation of something. Analysis and interpretation of the data is necessary. Plus, the design and implementation of a quantitative methodology demands time and effort; many people can be involved in this process. In order to be able to generalize the results, the study population should be large and representative of the general population. This is not an easy task. Generalization is not always possible since the population examined in a specific one, so further research is also necessary. It could be necessary to have follow up periods on even follow up studies.

The benefits of using qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, is that they can provide a deeper and better understanding of something. The group of people examined is strictly specified.

On the other hand, since we are talking about a specific target group, the results might differ if we conduct the survey in another context or in 10 years. Another limitation is that researchers cannot interview a large population. Plus, it might be necessary to test and support with quantitative methodologies the results.    

REFERENCES

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

Kim, J. and Haridakis, P. M. (2009), The Role of Internet User Characteristics and Motives in Explaining Three Dimensions of Internet Addiction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 988–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01478.x

Reflections on Theme 3: Research and theory

During this week we read the articles “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems” (Gregor, 2006) and “What Theory is Not” (Sutton and Staw, 1995). I found Gregor’s taxonomy of theory types really interesting because it included types which were not traditionally seen as theory. According to Gregor, the five theory types in Information Systems Research are: Analysis, Explanation, Prediction, Explanation and Prediction and Design and Action.  

In the first seminar we discussed the journals and the papers that we found interesting. Each group chose to discuss one of the articles, its results, the theory used, the limitations etc. My group discussed the “Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google” (Li et al., 2013). I found the discussion on the implications of Google as a dominant search engine on the diversity of online science content to be really interesting.

I was troubled by the fact that most-if not all- of the discussed articles had limitations in their methodologies; that results could not be generalized or that they were not clear conclusions. But what I got from this seminar is that even when a theory is considered to have limitations, it can still contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Researchers can learn from this mistake and avoid it in future theories and methodologies .

At the second seminar we discussed different theories and explained which theory type were used in some articles. My group discussed the Theory of Social Capital, according to which individuals can benefit from their networks. According to the results of the paper “The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites” (Ellison et al., 2007), there is a strong association between Facebook usage and the three dimensions of social capital: bridging of social capital, as well as bonding and maintained social capital. We argued that the major theory used in this paper is analysis because the theory provided an analysis of something that was poorly examined beforehand, a description of this phenomenon. We noted that it might also be an explanation theory because this theory explained how and why individuals can benefit by using Facebook, e.g. Facebook connections could pay off in terms of opportunities, such as jobs, internships etc. After the discussions in the second seminar, I could argue that the theory types used in this paper are analysis-mainly- and prediction, because the theory also provided patterns, but it did not have well developed justificatory causal explanations (Gregor, Ibid: 620). As we discussed during the seminars, it is not always easy to categorize a theory.

We also discussed the definition of theory in the course’s Wiki. Theory is a proposition describing and explaining why and how phenomena occur, connections between them. It can also try to explain the causal logic between cause and effect. The focus of the discussion was the theory’s justification and generalization through scientific repetition. My group did not agree with the opinion that when a theory is accepted by a majority of people, it can be regarded as a true belief. We disagreed with the term true belief and that it can be shaped trough the majority of people. We also noted that what is considered to be a true belief today may not be considered as such in 50 years. After all, theories can evolve, be revised.

To conclude, a theory should be scientifically justifiable. It is also important to be accepted by the gatekeepers. Being published in journals with high Impact Factor means that the theory has been through a quality process. 

REFERENCES

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

Li, N., Anderson, A., Brossard, D. and Scheufele, D. (2013). Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12043.

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.