SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Olgu Sosyoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1

What Is Digital Qualitative Research Methods? Innovations and Methodological Discussions

Dijital Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri Nelerdir? Yenilikler ve Yöntemsel Tartışmalar

Ersel Kiraz(BURSA TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7627-998X
Pages
64–88
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ultimately, this paper positions digital transformation not as a technical shift but as a comprehensive epistemological and paradigmatic reorientation that challenges conventional assumptions of qualitative methodology and invites renewed reflection on the ethics and politics of research in digitally mediated contexts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract This study investigates the digital transformation of qualitative research methods through theoretical, methodological, and ethical lenses.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Approaches such as digital ethnography, netnography, online in-depth interviews, digital and mobile diary methods, visual and multimodal analysis, social media content analysis, and digital trace ethnography are analyzed in relation to how digitalization reconfigures the boundaries of qualitative inquiry.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ultimately, this paper positions digital transformation not as a technical shift but as a comprehensive epistemological and paradigmatic reorientation that challenges conventional assumptions of qualitative methodology and invites renewed reflection on the ethics and politics of research in digitally mediated contexts.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Etnografi · Netnografi · Nitel Araştırma

Abstract

Abstract This study investigates the digital transformation of qualitative research methods through theoretical, methodological, and ethical lenses. Approaches such as digital ethnography, netnography, online in-depth interviews, digital and mobile diary methods, visual and multimodal analysis, social media content analysis, and digital trace ethnography are analyzed in relation to how digitalization reconfigures the boundaries of qualitative inquiry. The study argues that digital technologies have evolved beyond mere instruments of data collection to become epistemic agents that actively shape the form and meaning of knowledge production. While digital environments expand researchers’ capacity for flexibility, multimodal data generation, and real-time interaction, they also introduce new uncertainties in terms of privacy, consent, validity, and representation. Moreover, the digital turn compels researchers to reconsider the relationships among subjectivity, data, and technology, thereby redefining the ontological and methodological foundations of qualitative inquiry. Ultimately, this paper positions digital transformation not as a technical shift but as a comprehensive epistemological and paradigmatic reorientation that challenges conventional assumptions of qualitative methodology and invites renewed reflection on the ethics and politics of research in digitally mediated contexts.

Özet

Bu çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinde yaşanan dijital dönüşümü kuramsal, yöntemsel ve etik boyutlarıyla incelemek amacıyla kaleme alınmıştır. Dijital etnografi, netnografi, çevrimiçi derinlemesine görüşme, dijital günlük, görsel ve çok-modlu analiz, sosyal medya içerik analizi ve dijital iz verisi analizi gibi yaklaşımlar, dijitalleşmenin nitel araştırmaya kazandırdığı yeni imkânlar ve yöntemsel açılımlar çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. Dijital teknolojilerin yalnızca veri toplama araçları olmaktan çıkarak bilgi üretiminin biçim ve anlamını dönüştüren etkin unsurlar haline gelmesi, nitel araştırma alanında önemli bir paradigma genişlemesine işaret etmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, dijital ortamların sunduğu erişim kolaylığı, çoklu veri biçimleri, etkileşim olanakları ve araştırma süreçlerinde sağladığı esnekliğin, nitel araştırmanın kapsamını ve derinliğini zenginleştirdiğini vurgulamaktadır. Sonuç olarak dijital dönüşüm, nitel araştırmanın geleneksel paradigma ve yöntem sınırlarını genişleterek, araştırmacının özne, veri ve teknoloji arasındaki ilişkiyi daha bütüncül biçimde değerlendirmesine olanak tanımaktadır. Böylece çalışma, dijital dönüşümün nitel araştırmayı yalnızca teknik bir yenilik süreci olarak değil, epistemolojik, ontolojik ve metodolojik düzeyde kapsamlı bir dönüşüm olarak yeniden biçimlendirdiğini öne sürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kiraz, E. (2026). What Is Digital Qualitative Research Methods? Innovations and Methodological Discussions. Olgu Sosyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 64–88. https://doi.org/10.58632/olgusos.1822023

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Alaszewski, A. (2006). Using diaries for social research. SAGE.
  2. Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M., ve Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
  3. Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2019/2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0 (ss. 6-10). https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
  4. Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel araştırma süreci: Nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır? Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388.
  5. Bazeley, P., ve Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage Publications.
  6. Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., ve Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method. Princeton University Press.
  7. Bolger, N., Davis, A., ve Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-610. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
  8. Braun, V., ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. British Psychological Society (BPS). (2017/2021). Ethics guidelines for Internet-mediated research (ss. 5-9). https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research-2021
  10. Bucher, T., ve Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, ve A. Marwick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (ss. 233-253). SAGE.
  11. Couldry, N. (2008). Digital storytelling, media research and democracy: Conceptual choices and alternative futures. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Digital storytelling, mediatized stories (ss. 41-60). Peter Lang.
  12. Geiger, R. S., ve Ribes, D. (2011). Trace ethnography: Following coordination through documentary practices. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (ss. 1-10). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.455
  13. Gregori-Signes, C., ve Pennock-Speck, B. (2012). Digital storytelling as a genre of mediatized self-representations: An introduction. Digital Education Review, 22, 1-8.
  14. Gubrium, A. (2009). Digital storytelling: An emergent method for health promotion research and practice. Health Promotion Practice, 10(2), 186-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839909332600
  15. Gubrium, A. C., Hill, A. L., ve Flicker, S. (2014). A situated practice of ethics for participatory visual and digital methods in public health research and practice: A focus on digital storytelling. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1606-1614. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301310
  16. Herron, R., Dansereau, L., Wrathall, M., Funk, L., ve Spencer, D. (2019). Using a flexible diary method rigorously and sensitively with family carers. Qualitative Health Research, 29(7), 1004-1015.
  17. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online communities. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, ve J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (ss. 338-376). Cambridge University Press.
  18. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. SAGE.
  19. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., ve van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Howison, J., Wiggins, A., ve Crowston, K. (2011). Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 767-797.
  21. Jungherr, A. (2018). Normalizing digital trace data. In Digital discussions (pp. 9-35). Routledge.
  22. Keusch, F., & Kreuter, F. (2021). Digital trace data: Modes of data collection, applications, and errors at a glance. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, Vol 1. Taylor & Francis.
  23. Kozinets, R. V. (1998). On netnography: Initial reflections on consumer research investigations of cyberculture. In J. W. Alba ve W. Hutchinson (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 25, ss. 366-371). Association for Consumer Research
  24. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 61-72.
  25. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. SAGE Publications Ltd
  26. Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  27. Lambert, J. (2013). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  28. Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P., ve Brown, D. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3952
  29. Markham, A. N., ve Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  30. Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343
  31. McCombie, C., Esponda, G. M., Schmidt, U., ve Lawrence, V. (2024). Qualitative diary methods in mental health research: A scoping review and recommendations. European Psychologist, 29(1), 1-10.
  32. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094565
  33. Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., ve Kıcıman, E. (2019). Social data: Biases, methodological pitfalls, and ethical boundaries. Frontiers in Big Data, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00013
  34. Özbölük, T., ve Dursun, Y. (2015). Pazarlama araştırmalarında paradigmal dönüşüm ve etnografinin dijital evrimi: Netnografi. Erciyes üniversitesi iktisadi ve idari bilimler fakültesi dergisi, (46), 227-247.
  35. Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., ve Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. SAGE.
  36. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st-century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916
  37. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. MIT Press.
  38. Rogers, R. (2017). Digital methods for cross-platform analysis. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, ve A. Marwick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (ss. 91-110). SAGE.
  39. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.). London: Sage.
  40. Ruths, D., ve Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior: Need for higher standards. Science, 346(6213), 1063-1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257627
  41. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE.
  42. Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., ve Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
  43. Silver, C., ve Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  44. Stier, S., Breuer, J., Siegers, P., ve Thorson, K. (2020). Integrating survey data and digital trace data. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319843669
  45. Keusch, F., & Kreuter, F. (2021). Digital trace data: Modes of data collection, applications, and errors at a glance. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, Vol 1. Taylor & Francis.