Social Media

Special Issue

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Social Media Research: A Review of the Literature

Chareen L. Snelson 1

Abstract Social media technologies have attracted substantial attention among many types of users including researchers who have published studies for several years. This article presents an overview of trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research literature published from 2007 through 2013. A collection of 229 qualitative studies were identified through a systematic literature review process. A subset of 55 of these articles report studies involving a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Articles were reviewed, analyzed, and coded through a qualitative content analysis approach. Overall trends are presented with respect to the entire collection of articles followed by an analysis of mixed methods research approaches identified in the subset of 55 studies. The most commonly used research approaches involved collecting data from people through interview, focus group, and survey methodologies. Content analysis was the second most commonly used approach whereby researchers use Facebook posts, Tweets (Twitter posts), YouTube videos, or other social media content as a data source. Many of the studies involving combinations of quantitative and qualitative data followed a design resembling Creswell and Plano Clark’s basic mixed methods typology (e.g., convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential).

Keywords social media research, Web 2.0, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, mixed methods, qualitative

This article presents a descriptive methodological analysis of

qualitative and mixed methods approaches for social media

research. It is based on a systematic review of 229 qualitative

or mixed methods research articles published from 2007

through 2013 where social media played a central role. Publi-

cation trends are presented for the entire set of articles followed

by analysis of a subset of 55 studies that combined qualitative

and quantitative approaches consistent with an established

mixed methods typology (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). The literature analysis is first contextualized by

presenting a brief overview of related scholarly activity in the

emerging field of social media research. This is followed by a

discussion of publication trends and methodologies applied in

this systematic literature review.

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined social media as ‘‘ . . . a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideolo-

gical and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow

the creation and exchange of User Generated Content’’ (p. 61).

The emergence of social media technologies has been

embraced by a growing number of users who post text mes-

sages, pictures, and videos online (Duggan, 2013; Duggan,

Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). Reports of world-

wide social networking activity suggest that there were 1.96

billion users in 2015 with predictions of 2.44 billion users by

2018 (Statista, 2015). Of all the social networking sites, Face-

book, Twitter, and YouTube are among the most popular rank-

ing within the top 10 of a list of most heavily visited sites on the

web (Alexa, 2015). The combination of prolific user activity

and production of user-generated content has captured the

attention of scholars and researchers who seek to understand

social media and its role in contemporary society.

Considerable attention has been given to social media

research as evidenced by the expanding literature base and

growing number of comprehensive literature reviews, which

have been conducted to explore various facets of social media

research and scholarship. A matrix summary of 20 social media

literature reviews published from 2011 through early 2014 is

provided in Table 1. Although not a comprehensive list, each of

1 Department of Educational Technology, Boise State University, Boise, ID,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Chareen L. Snelson, Department of Educational Technology, Boise State

University, Boise, ID 83725, USA.

Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Qualitative Methods January-December 2016: 1–15 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1609406915624574 ijqm.sagepub.com

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

the articles in Table 1 represents a systematic literature review

with the methodology for sampling and analysis clearly

described by the author(s). The range of topics covered across

the collection of literature review works reveals some of the

diversity in emphasis and fields of study from which the works

emerge. Some authors have focused on categorization of trends

in academic literature related to specific social media platforms

such as Facebook (Błachnio, Przepiórka, & Rudnicka, 2013;

Caers et al., 2013; Hew, 2011; Manca & Ranieri, 2013; Nad-

karni & Hofmann, 2012; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012),

Twitter (Dhir, Buragga, & Boreqqah, 2013; Williams, Terras,

& Warwick, 2013), or YouTube (Snelson, 2011). Other studies

are grounded within a particular subject or field of study to

examine social media as it relates to topics such as adolescent

well-being (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014), health-care

professionals (Hamm et al., 2013), type 1 diabetes (Jones, Sin-

clair, Holt, & Barnard, 2013), tourism and hospitality (Leung,

Law, van Hoof, & Buhalis, 2013), or prediction of real-world

events (Kalampokis, Tambouris, & Tarabanis, 2013).

The prior literature reviews listed in Table 1 indicate that

much has already been covered on the subject of trends in

social media literature. Yet, there is little information about

trends in qualitative and mixed methods approaches to social

media research. Prior literature reviews have included discus-

sions of trends in research approaches but have provided a

more global classification of general trends (e.g., Best et al.,

Table 1. Systematic Literature Reviews on Social Media Topics.

Author(s) Emphasis of Review Field(s) of Studya Articles/Papers Reviewed

Best, Manktelow, and Taylor (2014)

Research on the effects of social networking on adolescent well-being

Sociology, social work, and social studies

43

Błachnio, Przepiórka, and Rudnicka (2013)

Research focusing on the role of psychological traits in explaining Facebook use

Psychology 59

Caers et al. (2013) Peer-reviewed articles and papers on Facebook published between 2006 and 2012 that focus on personality of users

Psychology and economics

114

Dhir, Buragga, and Boreqqah (2013)

Empirical, conceptual, and theoretical studies on Twitter and its use in education

Education 43

Gholami-Kordkheili, Wild, and Strech (2013)

Research, commentaries, editorials, and opinion papers on medical professionalism and social media

Health care and medical 108

Hamm et al. (2013) Research on social media use by health-care professionals or trainees published between 2000 and 2012

Health care and medical 96

Hew (2011) Research focusing on the use of Facebook by students and teachers

Education 36

Jones, Sinclair, Holt, and Barnard (2013)

Research on the use of social networking to discuss the risks of Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Health care and medical 6

Kalampokis, Tambouris, and Tarabanis (2013)

Research where social media data were used to predict real- world phenomena

Information systems 52

Khan (2012) Research on social media systems published 2003 to 2011 Information systems 274 Khang, Ki, and Ye (2012) Social media research trends in four disciplines (advertising,

communication, marketing, and public relations) published 1997–2010

Advertising, communication, marketing, and public relations

436

Leung, Law, van Hoof, and Buhalis (2013)

Social media–related research articles in tourism and hospitality published between 2007 and 2010

Tourism and hospitality 44

Manca and Ranieri (2013) Research with a focus on Facebook as a learning environment

Education 23

Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012)

Research on the psychological factors contributing to Facebook use

Psychology 42

Park and Calamaro (2013) Studies where social network sites are used for recruitment, intervention, or measurement in health research of adolescents and young adults

Health care, medical, and nursing

17

Snelson (2011) Trends in academic literature about YouTube published between 2006 and 2009

Interdisciplinary 188

Van Osch and Coursaris (2014)

Social media research productivity based on journal articles and conference proceedings from October 2004 to 2011

Interdisciplinary 610

Williams, Terras, and Warwick (2013)

Twitter and microblogging research published from 2007 to 2011

Interdisciplinary 575

Wilson, Gosling, and Graham (2012)

Trends in research on Facebook Social science 412

Zhang and Leung (2014) Social networking research published in six high-ranking communication journals from 2006 to 2011

Communication 84

a Information in the Field(s) of Study column is based primarily on statement of purpose and content focus of each literature review article.

2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

2014; Hamm et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013; Williams et al.,

2013). This literature review serves to expand the knowledge

base regarding how qualitative and mixed methods have been

applied to social media research. There are several reasons why

this might be important. Social media research is a relatively new

field of study that has emerged in conjunction with the develop-

ment of social media technologies and the upsurge in their use

(Duggan et al., 2015). Little is known about how many qualitative

and mixed methods social media studies have been published,

where they originate, or which academic journals publish them.

Furthermore, trends in the selection of research design, data col-

lection techniques, and analytic approaches are not well known.

The potential value of examining trends in the use of qua-

litative research approaches (e.g., interview, focus group, and

qualitative content analysis) lies in uncovering how researchers

design studies to gain insights into how and why people engage

with social media as well as the meaning that is attached to

experiences with social media. For example, Fox, Warber, and

Makstaller (2013) collected data from mixed-sex focus groups

to help them answer questions about the role of Facebook in

romantic relationship development. In another study, Greene,

Choudhry, Kilabuk, and Shrank (2011) conducted a qualitative

evaluation of posts from Facebook communities dedicated to

diabetes to reveal how patients, family members, and friends

share information and receive emotional support.

Mixed methods research approaches ‘‘in which the

researcher gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and quali-

tative (open-ended) data, integrates the two and then draws

interpretations based on the combined strengths of both sets

of data to understand research problems’’ (Creswell, 2014,

p. 2) also have potential value in social media research. For

example, Morgan, Snelson, and Elison-Bowers (2010) used qua-

litative analysis of social media content together with a survey to

uncover patterns of behavior and attitudes regarding depictions

of alcohol and marijuana use by young adults on social media

websites. As another example, Vyas, Landry, Schnider, Rojas,

and Wood (2012) combined a survey with follow-up interviews

to examine short message services and social media use among

Latino youth and the potential role of these services as methods

of communication in public health programs. These examples

illustrate the potential of qualitative and mixed methods research

approaches to uncover new insights through the complimentary

combination of methods. Yet, the question of how researchers

have been applying these approaches in social media studies has

not been explored in depth.

What this literature review contributes is a summary of

general trends in qualitative research studies together with a

more in-depth analysis of mixed methods approaches for social

media research. The overarching research questions guiding

this systematic literature review study were:

� What are the overall trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research?

� To what extent does the design of mixed methods social media studies align to an established typology for mixed

methods research?

Method

The central aim of this literature review was to identify trends

in qualitative and mixed methods approaches used in the emer-

gent field of social media research. The review is descriptive

and follows an integrative synthesis approach, which ‘‘attempts

to summarize the contents of multiple studies and minimizes

any interpretation on the part of the reviewer’’ (Harden &

Thomas, 2010, p. 752). The unit of analysis was a peer-

reviewed journal article reporting the results of a qualitative

or mixed methods research study where social media played a

central role. The scope of the literature review was limited to

articles published from 2007 through 2013. The reason for the

initial cutoff was that literature in the years before 2007 was

scant, given that social media is a relatively new phenomenon.

According to company websites, Facebook was invented in

2004 (Facebook, 2015), YouTube in 2005 (YouTube, 2015),

and Twitter in 2006 (Twitter, 2015). A previous literature

review on YouTube scholarship indicated that publications

began to appear in 2006, but no research studies were published

prior to 2007 (Snelson, 2011). Williams, Terras, and Warwick

(2013) selected 2007 as a starting point for their literature

review of Twitter and microblogging research because that is

when the first papers began to appear. Facebook research was

published as early as 2005 (Wilson et al., 2012) but seems to

have started building momentum in 2007. Therefore, the deci-

sion was made to set the initial cutoff at 2007 with a final cutoff

of 2013, which was the last full year before the review was

conducted in 2014.

Peer-reviewed journal articles were selected and analyzed

through a systematic process consistent with the prior litera-

ture review studies listed in Table 1. Selection and analysis of

articles proceeded through a series of the four stages illu-

strated in Figure 1.

Stage 1: Presearch

During the presearch phase, key words and databases were

selected based on a combination of (a) strategies used in prior

literature reviews and (b) test searches with candidate key

words, filters, and databases. Some of the prior literature

reviews focused on specific social media platforms (e.g., Face-

book, Twitter, and YouTube), whereas others investigated cer-

tain aspects of social media usage or content regardless of

platform. The present study integrates a combination of both

platform-specific and general search phrases to explore an

array of studies involving single or multiple types of social

media. The key words used were Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,

social media, and social networking. Each of these search

phrases has been used in at least one prior literature review.

Many of the prior social media literature reviews were

grounded in a particular field of study. Searches were con-

ducted in combinations of databases, which sometimes

included databases indexing literature specific to the field

(e.g., PubMed for medical-related literature reviews). The

present literature review is interdisciplinary with a focus on

Snelson 3

trends in research methodology regardless of discipline.

Therefore, searches were conducted exclusively in the fol-

lowing multidisciplinary databases, which have all been used

in prior literature reviews: Academic Search Premier, Web of

Science, and Google Scholar. Together, they offer substantial

and complementary access to the academic literature from

multiple disciplines.

Stage 2: Search

The search was conducted in January 2014 for articles pub-

lished from 2007 through 2013 that had bibliographic entries

available in the selected databases. The specific strategy for

searching each of the databases (Academic Search Premier,

Web of Science, and Google Scholar) is outlined here in detail

to make them replicable for other researchers.

Academic Search Premier and Web of Science involved a

key word search conducted in a similar manner. Each of the

search phrases, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, ‘‘social media,’’

and ‘‘social networking,’’ were entered one at a time in a series

of searches. Filers were applied with each round of searches to

retrieve peer-reviewed articles where the search phrase was

contained in the title. For example, the search for Facebook

articles was set to retrieve peer-reviewed articles with Face-

book in the title. Search results were exported directly from

each database in batches to the online version of EndNote

(Thompson Reuters, 2014a). At the time of searching, Aca-

demic Search Premier permitted export of 100 citations per

batch and Web of Science permitted export of 500 citations

per batch. All citations from each round of searches were

exported in batches until all of the results were copied into

EndNote online.

Google Scholar was included as one of the databases

searched for during this literature review due to its broad reach

across interdisciplinary academic scholarship indexed on the

Internet and its use in prior literature review studies (see

Błachnio et al., 2013; Dhir et al., 2013; Kalampokis et al.,

2013; Williams et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2012). Unfortu-

nately, Google Scholar has certain limitations. Williams et al.

(2013) searched Google Scholar for their literature review of

academic work related to Twitter but acknowledged the lack of

control over search fields and results containing many works

unrelated to the purpose of their research. An additional issue is

the sheer volume of results that might appear in a Google

Scholar search. Researchers might not have the time or

resources to sort through thousands of results to find articles

matching inclusion criteria for articles. Furthermore, Google

limits access to the first 1,000 search results (see Google,

2015), thereby making it impossible to access all of the results.

This limitation can be verified by clicking through to the last

page of a large set of search results.

The limitations with Google Scholar necessitated a modified

search strategy to obtain a manageable set of results that

yielded relevant articles not found through searches of Aca-

demic Search Premier and Web of Science. The lack of control

over search fields acknowledged by Williams et al. (2013) was

addressed by appending additional key words to restrict results

to relevant articles. As previously explained, the unit of anal-

ysis was a peer-reviewed journal article reporting the results of

a qualitative or mixed methods research study where social

media played a central role. Therefore, the search phrases were

adjusted to target both the type of social media and the type of

design in each round of searches. For example, the search for

Facebook literature was conducted in two rounds, with the

search phrase Facebook qualitative used in the first round fol-

lowed by Facebook mixed method in the second round. A sim-

ilar approach was used to search for literature on Twitter,

YouTube, social media, and social networking articles. This

targeted search produced a manageable results list but pro-

duced only eight relevant articles that were not already found

in the Academic Search Premier and Web of Science databases.

Google Scholar ultimately served as an ancillary search tool

that produced a few additional articles, but, in this particular

case, it created the problematic decision of whether to choose

(a) too many results that were labor-intensive to review and

could not be fully accessed or (b) a restrictive search that might

have limited the results to a narrower scope than desired. The

restrictive search option, although not ideal, was selected due

to its feasibility. Other researchers are encouraged to consider

the limitations of Google Scholar prior to using it to obtain

literature for a systematic review.

The process of removing duplicate citations was conducted

after the searches were complete and citations had been

imported into the online version of EndNote (Thompson Reu-

ters, 2014a). First, the duplicate removal tool was used to iden-

tify as many duplicates as possible that had been imported from

the different databases. This was followed by manual inspec-

tion of the citations to remove additional duplicates that had not

been entered into the databases in the same way. For example,

the author name or title might have been entered differently in

one database as compared to the others. The citations were

Figure 1. Stages in the literature review process.

4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

combined into a single group (minus duplicates), leaving a total

of 3,322 unique article citations.

Stage 3: Data Cleaning

Abstracts and full-text copies of the articles were reviewed to

determine eligibility for analysis. Articles were selected if they

met the following criteria: (a) the study applied qualitative

research methodology or mixed methods research with a qua-

litative research component, (b) the study emphasized online

social media, (c) the article was published in a peer-reviewed

journal, and (d) a full-text English copy of the article was

available. A total of 229 studies met the criteria with a subset

of 55 of these studies involving both qualitative and quantita-

tive (i.e., mixed) methods.

Stage 4: Analysis

A qualitative content analysis methodology, based on Schre-

ier’s (2012) approach, was used to structure the review and

analysis of the literature. Qualitative content analysis is a

descriptive research method involving development of a cod-

ing frame and qualitative coding of data. The coding frame was

both concept driven (defined in advance) and data driven

(derived from data during coding) as described by Schreier.

Essentially, the concept-driven part of the coding frame was

designed to classify studies according to research design (qua-

litative and mixed methods) and social media emphasized in

the research. The data-driven portion of the coding frame came

primarily from tagging and coding articles based on research

approaches used in the study, as will be discussed momentarily.

A single researcher conducted the present study; therefore, a

multiphase approach was taken to review the content at differ-

ent points in time and to cross-check results for consistency.

The articles had all been reviewed for eligibility for the study

during the data-cleaning stage, but the actual analysis of con-

tent began with a round of review and tagging using the Men-

deley’s (2014) reference management software. Full-text

copies of the articles were obtained and imported into Mende-

ley where they were reviewed, bibliographic information was

verified, and tags were applied to each article to indicate type

of social media emphasized and research approaches used in

the studies. The tagging process served as a first round of

classification and coding.

To conduct the second round of coding, bibliographic infor-

mation first was exported from Mendeley in the Research

Information Systems file format. This text file was imported

into the NVivo (Version 10) qualitative analysis software pro-

gram (QSR International, 2014). This process accomplished

two goals: (a) it imported full-text copies of the articles into

NVivo and (b) it simultaneously created an internal classifica-

tion sheet (similar to a spreadsheet), which contained biblio-

graphic information that was linked to each imported article.

The classification sheet was created for the purpose of running

queries within NVivo and for export to Excel (Microsoft, 2014)

where further analysis of overall trends could be conducted.

Additional attributes (similar to spreadsheet columns) were

added to the classification sheet so that each article could be

categorized based on the social media emphasized in the study.

The labeled categories comprised ‘‘Facebook,’’ ‘‘Twitter,’’ or

‘‘YouTube’’ for studies that focused on those specific social

media platforms alone. A ‘‘Combination’’ category was used to

label studies involving more than one type of social media that

included Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or some combination of

these platforms. A category for ‘‘Other Social Media’’ was

used to label studies involving other named social media plat-

forms such as MySpace. An ‘‘Unspecified’’ category was used

for studies that emphasized more general social media topics

where there was no specific mention of any particular social

media platform.

In addition to the categorization within the classification

sheet, each entire article was coded as a case node in NVivo

based on author names to facilitate the process of running

matrix queries of authors versus content. Next, content within

each article was coded based on the research approach applied

to conduct the social media study. A set of top-level nodes, set

at the highest point of a hierarchical node structure, was created

prior to analysis to serve as the concept-driven coding frame, as

discussed earlier. Nodes were created for qualitative and mixed

methods research studies. In addition, child nodes were created

under the mixed methods node for each of the mixed methods

research design types described by Creswell and Plano Clark

(2011). Nodes for specific approaches such as interviews, focus

groups, surveys, or content analysis were generated later when

they were identified during analysis and coding of the individ-

ual articles. Research approaches had already been tagged on

the articles in Mendeley during the first round of review, so the

NVivo coding was cross-checked with the Mendeley tags to

verify consistency. When discrepancies were observed, articles

were reviewed again to resolve these differences.

Trends across the set of tagged and coded literature were

identified through analysis of coded article text, matrix

queries of articles and codes, and information in the article

classification sheet. The classification sheet was exported

from NVivo as a spreadsheet for analysis in Excel where pivot

tables were created to generate charts and frequencies of pub-

lication trends.

Limitations and Delimitations

Prior literature reviews of social media research have described

limitations that are equally applicable to the current study.

Factors attributed to scope restrictions based on specific social

media platform, databases, types of literature (e.g., articles and

conference papers), languages, publications (e.g., specific jour-

nals), or use of specific search phrases have been discussed

(e.g., Błachnio et al., 2013; Gholami-Kordkheili, Wild, &

Strech, 2013; Khan, 2012; Khang, Ki, & Ye, 2012; Leung

et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2012; Zhang

& Leung, 2014). Restricting the scope of a literature review can

be beneficial in making the study feasible and focused. How-

ever, it also means that some literature will most likely be left

Snelson 5

out of the analysis. The same issue holds true for the present

study with its own restrictions on language, publication type,

databases, and search phrases. The restrictions and criteria for

inclusion should be communicated in literature reviews, as they

are here, to ensure that other researchers are made aware of

limitations impacting coverage. Furthermore, these details per-

mit replication or comparison among literature review studies.

The restrictions and selection criteria have been provided in the

method section earlier to ensure that these details are available

for interested researchers. In addition, a complete bibliography

of all of the studies included in this review, including a cate-

gorized list of mixed methods studies identified by the author,

is available online at https://sites.google.com/site/qualmix/

bibliography.

Strategies for describing, defining, or classifying mixed

methods research studies have been proposed through the

development of various typologies, models, or frameworks

(Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Guest, 2012;

Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Nastasi, Hitchcock, & Brown,

2010). The present literature review limits discussion to the

typology developed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). This

typology served as a useful tool for organizing and describing

timing and priority of data collection and analysis within social

media research.

Results and Discussion

The results of this systematic literature review study are orga-

nized in a general-to-specific manner. These results begin by

presenting overall trends for the entire combined collection of

229 qualitative and mixed methods research studies. This is

followed by an in-depth analysis of the subset of 55 mixed

methods research studies and the combination of approaches

applied for social media research.

Overall Publication Trends

The first research question was: What are the overall trends in

qualitative and mixed method social media research? This

question was answered by presenting a series of trend summa-

ries including publication count by year and type of social

media, countries that produced the majority of the research,

most common journals where the studies were published, and

a breakdown of research approaches used across the qualitative

and mixed methods research studies included in this review.

Overall trends in publication count and type of social media

emphasized are shown in Figure 2 for qualitative and mixed

method research studies published from 2007 through 2013.

The lines marked Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube represent

studies that focused solely on those specific social media plat-

forms. The line marked Combination represents studies involv-

ing more than one type of social media that included Facebook,

Twitter, YouTube, or some combination of these platforms in

the study. The line marked Other Social Media represents stud-

ies involving other named social media platforms such as

MySpace. The line marked Unspecified represents studies that

did not specify a platform but emphasized more general social

media topics.

The publication trends illustrated in Figure 2 show an over-

all increase in social media research involving either qualita-

tive or mixed methods. Facebook research is the strongest area

with more publications than any other social media platform.

This trend is consistent with the overall popularly of Facebook,

which has been described as the dominant social media plat-

form among adult users (Duggan et al., 2015).

There were 168 (73.4%) total studies originating from the five countries shown in Table 2, as determined by the location

of the first (corresponding) author. Essentially, Table 2 pro-

vides a summary of the points of origin and areas of emphasis

for the most prolific contributors of social media research iden-

tified in the literature review. In a similar manner, Hamm et al.

(2013) reported continents of origin for corresponding authors

when discussing the results of a literature review regarding

social media use by health-care professionals and trainees.

Although limited by the fact that the literature review included

only English texts, there is some indication of relative attention

given to social media platforms from the countries that yielded

the majority of the research.

The full set of 229 qualitative or mixed methods research

articles were published in 158 peer-reviewed academic jour-

nals. The 14 journals with a publication count of three or more

articles are listed in Table 3 to provide information about the

primary outlets for the interdisciplinary qualitative and mixed

method social media studies included in this review. Similarly,

other literature reviews have included journal information to

indicate where literature has been published within the emer-

gent field of social media scholarship (Khan, 2012; Khang

et al., 2012; Zhang & Leung, 2014).

Impact factors have played a role in prior literature reviews,

such as when researchers used them as part of the justification

to limit the scope of their review to specific journals with high

rankings (Archibald, Radil, Zhang, & Hanson, 2015; Zhang &

Leung, 2014). The present literature review took a different

approach to sample articles based on the inclusion criteria

described in the methods section and then identified the impact

factors of the journals where these studies were published as an

indicator of ranking and potential quality. The majority of

journals (72%) in Table 3 were listed in the Journal Citation Reports 2013 Edition (Thompson Reuters, 2014b). All but one

of the articles had an impact factor listed in 2013 and 12 of the

journals had both a 2013 and 5-year impact factor.

A matrix of qualitative and mixed methods social media

research approaches is shown in Table 4. The information was

obtained by identifying how researchers described their stud-

ies. Studies identified by the authors as following a case study,

ethnography, grounded theory, or phenomenology design were

labeled as such while coding and classifying the studies. Qua-

litative studies that were described generically as qualitative

without naming a specific design or were described in terms of

data collection techniques (e.g., interview and focus group) or

analytic techniques (e.g., content analysis and discourse anal-

ysis) were placed in the other qualitative category, which

6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

ended up being the case for 115 of the studies. Mixed methods

studies were identified based on methodology and the presence

of a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches.

The number of studies falling within each design category is

indicated in Table 4. Data collection techniques or analytic

approaches under each design category are marked qualita-

tively (X) to indicate where they were used by the researches

who conducted the studies included in this literature review.

Frequency counts were not included for data collection tech-

niques or analytic approaches in Table 4 because individual

studies might involve multiple techniques, and the problem

of multiple counting makes it difficult to interpret the results.

Instead, common trends are discussed to highlight approaches

more commonly used by researchers. General trends observed

from across the literature review are presented first followed by

a discussion of mixed methods research approaches in the next

section of this article.

Researchers commonly used interviews, focus groups, and

surveys as data collection techniques. These types of studies

were typically designed to examine facets of social media

users’ behaviors, uses, or experiences with social media.

Table 2. Countries of Origin and Social Media Emphasis for Most Prolific Contributors.

Countries Facebook Twitter YouTube Combo Other Unspecified Total

United States 31 16 8 7 9 35 106 United Kingdom 11 3 7 2 2 3 28 Australia 5 2 1 3 1 6 18 Canada 2 2 0 1 1 4 10 Taiwan 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 Total 53 24 17 13 13 48 168

Figure 2. Publication trends by year and type of social media.

Table 3. Journals With Three or More Social Media Studies.

Journal Titles Article Count

Impact Factor

2013 5 Year

New Media & Society 14 2.052 2.441 Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication 8 2.019 4.346

Public Relations Review 6 0.755 0.984 Computers in Human Behavior 4 2.273 3.047 Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology 4 0.875 1.198

British Journal of Educational Technology 4 1.394 1.912 Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking 4 2.410 2.535

Information, Communication & Society 4 1.283 None Journal of Medical Internet Research 4 4.669 5.724 Behaviour & Information Technology 3 0.839 1.261 International Journal of Emerging

Technologies & Society 3 None None

Learning, Media and Technology 3 0.958 1.529 The Information Society 3 0.972 1.195 Internet and Higher Education 3 2.048 2.635

Snelson 7

Examples of interview or focus group research included inter-

views with social media users regarding their experiences with

public mourning on Facebook (Brubaker, Hayes, & Dourish,

2013), interviews with American Red Cross employees to learn

how they used social media to communicate with key publics

(Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011), interviews with adolescents

to find out how they use social media to become informed of

world events (Marchi, 2012), and a combination of interviews

and focus group interviews with women to explore gender

stereotypes on Facebook (Bailey, Steeves, Burkell, & Regan,

2013). Surveys were predominantly quantitative with results

presented in numerical form, although there was one instance

where the survey was qualitatively oriented with open-ended

questions (Mihelj, van Zoonen, & Vis, 2011).

Content analysis comprised the most commonly used ana-

lytic approach across this group of qualitative and mixed meth-

ods research studies. In content analysis studies, researchers

used social media content such as Facebook posts, tweets

(Twitter posts), and YouTube videos as a data source. For

example, C. P. Chen (2013) coded the content of YouTube

videos of people who had been interviewed as part of a quali-

tative research study of personal (self) branding. Cohen and

Duchan (2012) conducted a qualitative analysis of the content

of Twitter posts submitted by teenage students in their study of

the role of Twitter in the teaching and learning process.

Content analysis can be conducted with qualitative or quan-

titative methods, although combinations of both are possible.

Results often take the form of frequency counts or themes

identified in the content. Content analysis, regardless of

whether it is qualitative or quantitative, has been described as

requiring development of a codebook, which is used to guide

coding of content (Krippendorf, 2013; Schreier, 2012). Use of a

codebook with predefined categories can be found in a content

analysis study of user-created videos about Islam on YouTube

(Mosemghvdlishvili & Jansz, 2012). However, there are times

when social media researchers have conducted content analysis

studies inductively or thematically instead of using a codebook.

For example, a study of influenza coverage on social media

sites reported that the ‘‘ . . . content analysis was based on a general inductive approach and conducted by a single coder’’

(Lehmann, Ruiter, & Kok, 2013, p. 3). Studies where content

was coded in an open, inductive, or thematic manner represent

an approach to content analysis that resembles the type of open

qualitative coding that one might apply to other types of qua-

litative data such as interview transcripts.

Trends in Mixed Methods Designs for Social Media Research

The second research question was: To what extent does the

design of mixed methods social media studies align with an

established typology for mixed methods research approaches?

This question was answered by presenting trends in methodo-

logical approaches in the 55 mixed methods research articles.

Studies identified as representing mixed methods research for

the current analysis were social media studies that integrated

qualitative and quantitative research methods in alignment with

most definitions of mixed methods research (Creswell, 2014;

Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, &

Turner, 2007). Authors of the studies sampled for this literature

review did not always label their studies as mixed methods,

which is consistent with the noted variability in terminologies

used across the landscape of mixed methods research studies

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Therefore, mixed method

research studies were first identified by reviewing the abstracts

and methods sections for terminology identifying the study as

mixed methods, multi method (qualitative and quantitative

combinations), or having used a combination of qualitative and

quantitative methods. Next, the articles were reviewed to verify

the presence of both qualitative and quantitative approaches for

data collection or analysis. The mixed methods research studies

then were classified based on their resemblance to the basic

mixed methods research designs described by Creswell and

Plano Clark (2011) and Creswell (2014) (e.g., convergent par-

allel, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential). A resi-

dual category for other types of mixed methods research

Table 4. Matrix of Qualitative and Mixed Method Social Media Research Approaches.

Research Designs

Case Study Ethnography Grounded Theory Phenomenology Other Qualitative Mixed Methods

Number of Studies 18 22 17 2 115 55 Data collection techniques

Fieldwork and observation X X X X X Focus group X X X X Interview X X X X X X Survey X Big dataa X

Analytic approaches Coding X X X X X Discourse analysis X X X Content analysis X X X X X Statistical analysis X

a Big Data refers to large data sets of content extracted from social networking sites.

8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

designs was used to categorize those studies that could not be

classified due to unclear description of methodology or lack of

clear fit to the mixed methods research designs. A brief sum-

mary of mixed methods research designs and examples of

social media studies of each type are provided in Table 5.

The mixed methods research designs described in Table 5

warrant further discussion of how these designs have mani-

fested within social media research. Although space limitations

prohibit discussion of every social media study, each of the

basic mixed methods designs is discussed together with repre-

sentative studies that exemplify how the designs have been

applied in social media research. The residual category for

other mixed methods research studies will not be discussed

further. The emphasis centers on methodological structures

regardless of research topic in keeping with the central goal

of the present literature review. In-depth analysis of research

outcomes, which are highly varied in this multidisciplinary

review, is beyond the scope of this article. Prior literature

reviews already have covered a great deal of ground in the

analysis of research trends and outcomes related to specific

disciplines or research questions in social media studies as

shown in Table 1.

Convergent Parallel Design

The convergent parallel design has been described as one of the

most well-known approaches of mixed methods research

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). It has been conceptualized

as a triangulation approach whereby qualitative and quantita-

tive results are brought together to explore a research problem

from multiple angles to confirm results (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). In fact, the word triangulation was used in some

social media studies that utilized a convergent parallel struc-

ture. For example, a study of educational use and privacy issues

on Facebook integrated web surveys and interviews in what

was called a mixed methods research design using a model

of ‘‘methodological triangulation’’ (Bruneel, Wit, Verhoeven,

& Elen, 2013, p. 132). Annabi and McGann (2013) also

described triangulation of multiple data sources, which were

collected in parallel for their study of the use of social media in

communities of practice in business.

A convergent parallel structure was identified in the design

of 23 of the 55 mixed methods research studies, although none

of these studies were explicitly labeled as such by the authors

who simply discussed the combination of qualitative and quan-

titative approaches. Studies were classified as convergent par-

allel based on author descriptions of data collection and mixing

of qualitative and quantitative data, which closely resembled

the description of convergent parallel design. The example

cited in Table 5 involved analysis of the use of a hallucinogenic

plant called Salvia divinorum in YouTube videos (Casselman

& Heinrich, 2011). Qualitative observations were conducted on

100 YouTube videos that showed people smoking the plant.

Quantitative meta-data, collected during the same time frame,

were obtained through the use of a web-crawler tool. The data

streams were collected in parallel and combined in the analysis

and interpretation of results to discuss trends in use of the plant

and patterns of views over time on YouTube.

A notable trend among several studies with a convergent

parallel structure was to mix data obtained from people with

data from social media sites or content (e.g., Facebook pro-

files, YouTube videos). Data obtained from people were col-

lected via interviews, surveys, focus groups, surveys, or

observations, whereas data from social media content were

obtained by harvesting materials such as posts or videos from

social media sites. Quantitative and qualitative data were

obtained from people as well as social media content. The

diagram in Figure 3 illustrates the convergence of streams

of quantitative and qualitative data obtained from people and

social media content sources. The data typically were com-

bined during the analysis and interpretation stages of the

research process.

Examples of the convergent parallel structure, involving

data from people and content, illustrate how this combination

has been applied in social media research. For example, quan-

titative and qualitative data from Facebook posts were com-

bined with interview data from students who interacted with

social media while in study abroad programs (Back, 2013).

Research on the differences in self-presentation on social

media sites among ethnoracial groups involved a combination

of interviews, focus groups, and quantitative content analysis

of Facebook profiles of African American, Latino, Indian, and

Vietnamese ancestry students (Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao,

2009). A study of transparency in social media practice of

organizations and public relations professionals integrated data

from a survey, interviews, and a content analysis of social

media campaigns (DiStaso & Bortree, 2012). These studies are

representative of the group of social media research articles

classified as convergent parallel.

Explanatory Sequential Design

The explanatory sequential design is structured with a quanti-

tative portion first followed by a qualitative portion that further

explores something uncovered during the quantitative analysis

(Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The example

social media study in Table 5 is structured in an explanatory

sequential style with a quantitative survey on the topic of Face-

book privacy followed by focus groups to deepen understand-

ing of survey results (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes,

2009). The explanatory sequential structure was identified in

nine of the social media studies and the majority of them (six

studies) involved a survey with follow-up interviews or focus

groups. For example, a survey of students regarding their use of

Facebook and MySpace was followed up with a focus group of

students who used one or both social media sites (Chu & Meu-

lemans, 2008). Cunliffe, Morris, and Prys (2013) adopted a

similar research design by administering a survey followed

by a series of focus groups in a study of teenage students’ use

of Welsh language on Facebook.

The social media studies following an explanatory sequen-

tial pattern were predominantly oriented toward obtaining data

Snelson 9

from people through surveys and follow-up interviews or focus

groups. However, some studies also involved the integration of

data from social media content within an explanatory sequen-

tial approach. For example, a study of user-created videos

about Islam on YouTube began with an analysis of videos and

YouTube channel pages. The content analysis involved coding

on both quantitative and qualitative variables including video

characteristics, producer demographics, valence framing (i.e.,

very positive to very negative), thematic variables such as topic

or country, and a qualitative category to explore the topic of

Islam on YouTube in greater depth. The content analysis was

followed by interviews with some of the people who created

the videos to learn more about their motivations for creating

and sharing their videos on YouTube (Mosemghvdlishvili &

Jansz, 2012). Another study, based entirely on Twitter content,

began with a large-scale analysis of tweets (Twitter posts)

using specific tags related to Hugo Chávez. Dominant opinion

leaders were identified based on the propagation of their tweets

(i.e., retweet, mention, or copy more than 80% of the content). The profiles of top opinion leaders then were analyzed as

part of the qualitative research process to examine the

characteristics of these influential tweeters (Deltell, Congosto,

Claes, & Osteso, 2013). This study follows the structure of an

explanatory sequential design, but it emphasizes results

obtained from analysis of social media content.

The diagram in Figure 4 illustrates the structure of explana-

tory sequential studies to show how the qualitative strand

builds from the quantitative strand. Data obtained from people

or content can be generated in either or both strands depending

on the research goals.

Exploratory Sequential

The exploratory sequential design is structured as a mirror

opposite to the explanatory sequential design, with a qualitative

portion first followed by a quantitative portion to test or to

generalize the qualitative findings (Creswell, 2014; Creswell

& Plano Clark, 2011). The example social media study in

Table 5 is structured in an exploratory sequential style with

qualitative interviews followed by a quantitative survey

(Strano & Queen, 2012). The interviews were conducted with

Facebook users as part of a study about the use of photos on

Figure 3. Diagram of convergent parallel strands in social media studies.

Table 5. Mixed Methods Research Designs and Examples of Social Media Studies.

Mixed Methods Research Design Brief Description Social Media Research

Convergent parallel design (23 studies)

Quantitative and qualitative portions conducted in parallel strands with results combined or connected to each other at the end of the study

Analysis of the content of YouTube videos together with the meta-data obtained from a separate web crawler program (Casselman & Heinrich, 2011)

Explanatory sequential design (9 studies)

Quantitative portion first followed by qualitative to help explain quantitative findings

Quantitative survey followed by focus groups to deepen understanding of survey results regarding privacy on Facebook (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009)

Exploratory sequential design (11 studies)

Qualitative portion first followed by quantitative to test or to generalize findings

Interviews reveal behaviors related to untagging and deletion of photos on Facebook. A survey was administered to follow up on interview findings (Strano & Queen, 2012)

Other mixed methods (12 studies)

Residual category for those studies not clearly fitting other categories

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of memes in YouTube videos (Shifman, 2011)

Note. A categorized bibliography of all the mixed methods research studies based on type of design is available online at https://sites.google.com/site/qualmix/ mixedmethods

10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Facebook. During the qualitative portion of the study, the

researchers noticed that participants described image suppres-

sion practices involving untagging or deletion of images. These

findings were further explored with a quantitative follow-up

survey designed to learn more about the frequency of untagging

or photo deletion to manage identity on Facebook.

The exploratory sequential structure was identified in 11 of

the social media studies. Six of them were structured with the

sequential combination of interviews or focus groups con-

ducted first with quantitative surveys conducted afterward. For

example, K. H. Chen, Shen, and Ma (2012) conducted a study

of the appeal of social networking games (i.e., Facebook

games) that began with interviews of 11 experts, who were

either experienced game players or designers. The experts were

asked about their preferences for usability and functionality of

20 games that they had all played. Findings from the interviews

were used to develop questions for a follow-up survey com-

pleted by 321 gamers to test and to generalize the findings

related to game appeal. Another study of user perspectives on

construction of a social networking site for the work environ-

ment began with focus groups to generate preliminary results

for the construction of a follow-up questionnaire (Valdez,

Schaar, & Ziefle, 2012).

Like other mixed methods social media studies, those struc-

tured in the exploratory sequential pattern obtained data from

people as well as from social media content. Church (2010)

studied leadership discourse in YouTube video clips of candi-

dates during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The study

began with a grounded theory analysis of the video discourse

to develop categories from which candidate leadership traits

could be coded in a subsequent content analysis. Frequencies of

the appearance of leadership traits in the YouTube videos then

were generated during the quantitative content analysis that

followed. Along similar lines, Bronstein (2013) conducted a

content analysis of the Facebook pages of two presidential

candidates in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. A qualitative

content analysis was conducted first to identify themes in the

types of persuasive language used, the subject of the post, and

additional features such as likes or links to websites. A quanti-

tative analysis followed to look for relationships among iden-

tified themes, such as style of persuasive language, and number

of likes and comments received on the posts.

The diagram in Figure 5 illustrates the structure of explora-

tory sequential studies to show how the quantitative strand

builds from the qualitative strand. Data obtained from people

or content can be generated in either or both strands depending

on the research goals.

Summary and Conclusion

This article presented the results of a descriptive qualitative

content analysis of 229 social media studies conducted using

qualitative or mixed methods research approaches that were

published from 2007 through 2013. Overall trends for publica-

tion and methodologies were presented followed by an analysis

of mixed methods research studies and how their structure

aligns to parallel and sequential mixed methods research

designs described by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). The

upsurge of social media use has been coupled with increased

interest in learning more about human interaction with social

media and the type of content posted on social media sites.

Prior literature reviews (Table 1) have collectively uncovered

much regarding social media research trends and outcomes.

The present literature review contributes to the knowledge base

by examining trends in qualitative and mixed methods research

publications, research designs, data collection techniques, and

analytic approaches.

Summary of Main Findings

The analysis of publication trends revealed that social media

research has been increasing over time and particularly for

studies involving Facebook. The growth in academic interest

in social media is evident in both the collection of studies

reviewed for this article and the 20 prior literature reviews

listed in Table 1. This suggests that social media research is

becoming increasingly commonplace and that studies empha-

sizing Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, social media, and social

networking have entered the mainstream of academic litera-

ture. One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that social

media research is emerging as a field of study in its own right.

The majority of the qualitative and mixed methods social

media studies were conducted with established methods such

as interviews, surveys, focus groups, or content analysis.

Figure 4. Diagram of explanatory sequential strands in social media studies.

Snelson 11

Studies were designed to investigate people and their percep-

tions or use of social media, themes in social media content, or

a combination of both. Interviews and focus groups were com-

mon strategies in these types of studies. Content analysis was a

dominant analytic approach used within studies that involved

social media content such as Facebook posts, tweets (Twitter

posts), or YouTube videos. Emergent social media research

designs such as those that couple network analysis with quali-

tative analysis were present but uncommon in the literature

sampled for this review (see Deltell et al., 2013). However,

mixed methods research approaches involving network analy-

sis are emerging and evolving as researchers grapple with the

challenges and benefits for studies involving social networks

(Dominguez & Hollstein, 2014).

Analysis of the 55 mixed methods social media studies indi-

cated that nearly one half of them (23 studies) were structured

like the convergent parallel design, with the remaining studies

structured like the exploratory sequential or explanatory

sequential designs described by Creswell and Plano Clark

(2011). Regardless of similarities to this established mixed

methods typology, the authors did not use terms such as con-

vergent parallel, explanatory sequential, or exploratory sequen-

tial in the description of methods used. This indicates that

terminologies associated with mixed methods research designs

have not yet been widely adopted by researchers conducting

mixed methods social media studies.

Directions for Further Research

Social media studies have a central emphasis on technologies

such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. However, only 61

of the 229 articles included discussion of the use of software

or other technologies to collect or to analyze data. For exam-

ple, instant messaging, voice, or video tools were used by

some researchers for distance interviews (Arnold & Paulus,

2010; Brubaker et al., 2013; Gikas & Grant, 2013; Wesely,

2013). Tools for harvesting social media content were dis-

cussed in other studies such as Casselman and Heinrich’s

(2011) YouTube study or the Twitter study conducted by

Deltell et al. (2013). Social media content can be tedious to

capture, but tools for harvesting and analysis of online social

media content are becoming more readily available and user

friendly. For example, the NCapture tool was designed to

work with NVivo to capture social media content from sites

including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for qualitative

analysis. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide an

in-depth analysis of technologies for social media research,

but information is available online (see Nova Southeastern

University, 2015; University of Surrey, 2015). Additional

research on the role of technologies for studies of social

media content is warranted, given the number of studies that

integrate content from social media sites.

It can be valuable to have access to software or other tech-

nologies that support qualitative and mixed methods social

media research. However, it is equally important to use these

tools in well-designed studies conducted with methods appro-

priate for answering the research questions. The literature

review presented in this article provides an overview of recent

trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research

designs to uncover prior approaches and how they were applied

in this emergent field of study. A complete bibliography is

provided along with a categorized list of studies for review

by researchers who wish to examine further how others have

conducted mixed methods social media studies (see https://

sites.google.com/site/qualmix/). This literature review pro-

vides a summative starting point for researchers who wish to

see what has already been undertaken by others who have

conducted qualitative or mixed methods social media studies.

Yet, there remains a need for a more cohesive framework that

clearly identifies best practices in the selection and coupling of

appropriate methods and technologies for social media

research. Future work in this area could build on alternative

mixed methods typologies that integrate interpretive and eva-

luative approaches that were not included in the descriptive

review presented in this article (see Guest, 2012; Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Nastasi et al., 2010; O’Cathain, 2010).

Additional research promises to advance knowledge of social

media methodologies and promote rich discussions of method

and technology in this growing field of study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figure 5. Diagram of exploratory sequential strands in social media studies.

12 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexa. (2015). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved from http://

www.alexa.com/topsites

Annabi, H., & McGann, S. T. (2013). Social media as the missing link:

Connecting communities of practice to business strategy. Journal

of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23,

56–83. doi:10.1080/10919392.2013.748608

Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W. E. (2015).

Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content

analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 14, 5–33. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ual-

berta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/23006

Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for

experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and com-

munity building. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 188–196.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.002

Back, M. (2013). Using Facebook data to analyze learner interaction

during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 377–401. doi:

10.1111/flan.12036

Bailey, J., Steeves, V., Burkell, J., & Regan, P. (2013). Negotiating

with gender stereotypes on social networking sites: From ‘‘bicycle

face’’ to Facebook. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 37,

91–112. doi:10.1177/0196859912473777

Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication,

social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative

review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27–36. doi:10.

1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001

Błachnio, A., Przepiórka, A., & Rudnicka, P. (2013). Psychological

determinants of using Facebook: A research review. International

Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29, 775–787. doi:10.

1080/10447318.2013.780868

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with

the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to

build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37–43. doi:10.

1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006

Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me! Analyzing the 2012 presidential candi-

dates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review, 37, 173–192.

doi:10.1108/OIR-01-2013-0002

Brubaker, J. R., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2013). Beyond the grave:

Facebook as a site for the expansion of death and mourning. The

Information Society, 29, 152–163. doi:10.1080/01972243.2013.

777300

Bruneel, S., Wit, K. D., Verhoeven, J. C., & Elen, J. (2013). Facebook:

When education meets privacy. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-

Learning and Learning Objects, 9, 125–148.

Caers, R., De Feyter, T., De Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Du

Bois, C. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media &

Society, 15, 982–1002. doi:10.1177/1461444813488061

Casselman, I., & Heinrich, M. (2011). Novel use patterns of Salvia

divinorum: Unobtrusive observation using YouTube TM

. Journal of

Ethnopharmacology, 138, 662–667. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.07.065

Chen, C.-P. (2013). Exploring personal branding on YouTube. Jour-

nal of Internet Commerce, 12, 332–347. doi:10.1080/15332861.

2013.859041

Chen, K.-H., Shen, K.-S., & Ma, M.-Y. (2012). The functional and

usable appeal of Facebook SNS games. Internet Research, 22,

467–481. doi:10.1108/10662241211250999

Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. N. (2008). The problems and potential of

MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Ref-

erence Services Quarterly, 13, 69–85. doi:10.1300/J136v13n01-04

Church, S. H. (2010). YouTube politics: YouChoose and leadership

rhetoric during the 2008 election. Journal of Information Technol-

ogy & Politics, 7, 124–142. doi:10.1080/19331681003748933

Cohen, A., & Duchan, G. (2012). The usage characteristics of Twitter

in the learning process. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning

and Learning Objects, 8, 149–163.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conduct-

ing mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunliffe, D., Morris, D., & Prys, C. (2013). Young bilinguals’ lan-

guage behaviour in social networking sites: The use of Welsh on

Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18,

339–361. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12010

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009).

Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended

consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

15, 83–108. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x

Deltell, L., Congosto, M., Claes, F., & Osteso, J. (2013). Identification

and analysis of the opinion leaders around the figure of Hugo

Chávez on Twitter. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 16,

696–719. doi:10.4185/RLCS-2013-997en

Dhir, A., Buragga, K., & Boreqqah, A. A. (2013). Tweeters on cam-

pus: Twitter a learning tool in classroom? Journal of Universal

Computer Science, 19, 672–691. doi:10.3217/jucs-019-05-0672

DiStaso, M. W., & Bortree, D. S. (2012). Multi-method analysis of

transparency in social media practices: Survey, interviews and

content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38, 511–514. doi:10.

1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.003

Dominguez, S., & Hollstein B. (Eds.). (2014). Mixed methods social

networks research design and applications. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Duggan, M. (2013). Photo and video sharing grow online. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/

2013/Photos-and-ideos.aspx

Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M.

(2015). Social media update 2014. Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-

media-update-2014/

Facebook. (2015). About Facebook: Basic info. Retrieved from

https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info

Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Face-

book in romantic relationship development: An exploration of

Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 30, 771–794. doi:10.1177/0265407512468370

Gholami-Kordkheili, F., Wild, V., & Strech, D. (2013). The impact of

social media on medical professionalism: A systematic qualitative

Snelson 13

review of challenges and opportunities. Journal of Medical Inter-

net Research, 15, e184. doi:10.2196/jmir.2708

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher

education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones,

smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education,

19, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002

Google. (2015). Specifications and usage limits. Retrieved from

https://support.google.com/gsa/answer/4411411?hl¼en#results Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., & Zhao, S. (2009). Ethno-racial identity

displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-

cation, 15, 158–188. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01498.x

Greene, J. A., Choudhry, N. K., Kilabuk, E., & Shrank, W. H. (2011).

Online social networking by patients with diabetes: A qualitative

evaluation of communication with Facebook. Journal of General

Internal Medicine, 26, 287–292. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3

Guest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative

to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7, 141–151.

doi:10.1177/1558689812461179

Hamm, M. P., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Scott, S. D.,

Klassen, T. P., & Hartling, L. (2013). Social media use by health

care professionals and trainees: A scoping review. Academic Med-

icine?: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,

88, 1376–1383. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829eb91c

Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2010). Mixed methods and systematic

reviews: Examples and emerging issues. In A. Tashakkori & C.

Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral

research (2nd ed., pp. 749–774). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers

in Human Behavior, 27, 662–676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods

research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational

Researcher, 33, 14–26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a

definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 1, 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224

Jones, E., Sinclair, J. M. A., Holt, R. I. G., & Barnard, K. D. (2013).

Social networking and understanding alcohol-associated risk for

people with Type 1 diabetes: Friend or foe? Diabetes Technology

& Therapeutics, 15, 308–314. doi:10.1089/dia.2012.0327

Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2013). Understand-

ing the predictive power of social media. Internet Research, 23,

544–559. doi:10.1108/IntR-06-2012-0114

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The

challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons,

53, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Khan, G. F. (2012). Social media-based systems: An emerging area of

information systems research and practice. Scientometrics, 95,

159–180. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0831-5

Khang, H., Ki, E.-J., & Ye, L. (2012). Social media research in adver-

tising, communication, marketing, and public relations, 1997-

2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89,

279–298. doi:10.1177/1077699012439853

Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its meth-

odology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lehmann, B. A., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G. (2013). A qualitative

study of the coverage of influenza vaccination on Dutch news sites

and social media websites. BMC Public Health, 13, 1–13. doi:10.

1186/1471-2458-13-547

Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media

in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 30, 3–22. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750919

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A

critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-

enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 29, 487–504. doi:10.1111/jcal.12007

Marchi, R. (2012). With Facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject

journalistic ‘‘objectivity.’’ Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36,

246–262. doi:10.1177/0196859912458700

Mendeley (2014). Mendeley [software program]. Retrieved from

http://www.mendeley.com/

Microsoft. (2014). Excel [software program]. Retrieved from http://

office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/

Mihelj, S., van Zoonen, L., & Vis, F. (2011). Cosmopolitan commu-

nication online: YouTube responses to the anti-Islam film Fitna.

The British Journal of Sociology, 62, 613–632. doi:10.1111/j.

1468-4446.2011.01383.x

Morgan, E. M., Snelson, C., & Elison-Bowers, P. (2010). Image and

video disclosure of substance use on social media websites. Com-

puters in Human Behavior, 26, 1405–1411. doi:10.1016/j.chb.

2010.04.017

Mosemghvdlishvili, L., & Jansz, J. (2012). Framing and praising

Allah on YouTube: Exploring user-created videos about Islam and

the motivations for producing them. New Media & Society, 15,

482–500. doi:10.1177/1461444812457326

Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Face-

book? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 243–249. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive

framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies:

Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In A.

Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods

in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305–338). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nova Southeastern University. (2015). Mobile and cloud qualitative

research apps. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/apps.

html

O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research:

Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research (2nd ed., pp. 305–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Park, B. K., & Calamaro, C. (2013). A systematic review of social

networking sites: Innovative platforms for health research target-

ing adolescents and young adults. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,

45, 256–264. doi:10.1111/jnu.12032

QSR International. (2014). NVivo [software program]. Retrieved from

http://www.qsrinternational.com/

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shifman, L. (2011). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media &

Society, 14, 187–203. doi:10.1177/1461444811412160

Snelson, C. (2011). YouTube across the disciplines: A review of the

literature. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7,

14 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

159–169. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/snelson_

0311.htm

Statista. (2015). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010

to 2018 (in billions). Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/sta-

tistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Strano, M. M., & Queen, J. W. (2012). Covering your face on Face-

book. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and

Applications, 24, 166–180. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000076

Thompson Reuters. (2014a). EndNote [software program]. Retrieved

from https://www.myendnoteweb.com

Thompson Reuters. (2014b). Journal Citation Reports 2013 Edition.

Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-

reports/

Twitter. (2015). Twitter milestones: A selection of memorable

moments from our company. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.

com/milestones

University of Surrey. (2015). CAQDAS networking project. Retrieved

from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/

caqdas/

Valdez, A. C., Schaar, A. K., & Ziefle, M. (2012). State of the (net)-

work address developing criteria for applying social networking to

the work environment. Work, 41, 3459–3467. doi:10.3233/WOR-

2012-0625-3459

Van Osch, W., & Coursaris, C. K. (2014). Social media research: An

assessment of the domain’s productivity and intellectual evolution.

Communication Monographs, 1–25. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.

921720

Vyas, A. N., Landry, M., Schnider, M., Rojas, A. M., & Wood, S. F.

(2012). Public health interventions: Reaching Latino adolescents

via short message service and social media. Journal of Medical

Internet Research, 14, 1–14. doi:10.2196/jmir.2178

Wesely, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of

world language educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 64, 305–318. doi:10.1177/0022487113489032

Williams, S. A., Terras, M. M., & Warwick, C. (2013). What do

people study when they study Twitter? Classifying Twitter related

academic papers. Journal of Documentation, 69, 384–410. doi:10.

1108/JD-03-2012-0027

Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of

Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psycho-

logical Science, 7, 203–220. doi:10.1177/1745691612442904

YouTube. (2015). About YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.you-

tube.com/yt/about/

Zhang, Y., & Leung, L. (2014). A review of social networking service

(SNS) research in communication journals from 2006 to 2011. New

Media & Society, 1–18. doi:10.1177/1461444813520477

Snelson 15

Copyright of International Journal of Qualitative Methods is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.