Virtual Methods

The third issue, integration of qualitative and quantitative findings, relates to the
previous issue. During our training workshop we placed primary emphasis on
instructing researchers in site identification and in handling the feature coding
instrument and, because of time constraints and in the interest of achieving comparability
of data, little attention was given to procedures for qualitative notetaking.
We did, however, encourage participating researchers to develop more
detailed guidelines in accordance with the political and cultural contexts in which
they were working.
Towards an Agenda for Methodological Innovation
Epilogue • 205
The third topic we wish to address in this epilogue is issues and concerns that merit
placement on a methodological agenda for Internet research. We have organized
our suggestions along two of the three levels of innovation introduced earlier: the
macro and mezzo levels; suggestions at the micro level are more than adequately
covered in the preceding chapters in this volume.
Macro Level
At the macro level, we have one overriding recommendation: acknowledgement of
the mutual value and integration of the three approaches to social science research,
the positivist, the critical analytical and the interpretative. All too often,
researchers representing these traditions place themselves in opposing camps and
engage in self-defensive tactics with regard to the ‘others’. We regard such an
oppositional stance as unproductive. There is, from our perspective, no single,
authoritative way of knowing in the scientific enterprise. At the same time, we personally
are reluctant to embrace Feyeraband’s (1975) dictum of ‘anything goes’.
Rather, we advocate openness for the methodological stances and approaches of
the various ‘schools’ and streams prominent in Internet research.
Mezzo Level
At the mezzo level we recommend four areas for further work. First, it is imperative
that research designs be developed incorporating the three paradigms that
Williams et al. (1988) identified. Concretely, this involves constructing research
designs that include, for example, (quasi) experiments along with ethnographic
studies. We are not, to be clear, advocating the conventional arrangement where a
qualitative exploratory component precedes what the design is ‘really’ about: the
quantitative measure of identified variables. This often reflects a biased and inappropriate
combination of the qualitative and quantitative components in a research
design.
A word of caution is important with regard to such integrative efforts. The term
triangulation often is used to reflect this intent. Denzin (1970) introduced this term