Thesis Title: Subtitle


Table 1: Questionnaire - Age


Download 0.57 Mb.
bet32/83
Sana07.05.2023
Hajmi0.57 Mb.
#1440504
1   ...   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   ...   83
Bog'liq
s4140022 Phd Submission Final

Table 1: Questionnaire - Age





Please select your age range.



Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

18-24

42.6%

66

25-30

26.5%

41

31-40

18.7%

29

41-50

6.5%

10

51-60

4.5%

7

61-70

1.3%

2

70+

0.6%

1

answered question




155

Table 2: Questionnaire - Gender



Please indicate your gender









Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Woman

80.0%

124

Man

20.0%

31

answered question




155

Table 3: Questionnaire - Educational Attainment





Please select the highest level of education you have completed from the list below.



Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Some highschool/secondary school

4.5%

7

Completed high school/secondary school

21.3%

33

Diploma/ associate diploma/ trade certificate/apprenticeship

14.2%


22


Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate

4.5%

7

Bachelors degree

34.2%

53

Postgraduate qualification

21.3%

33

answered question




155

Table 4: Interview Participant Demographics

Name

Gender

Age

Country

Interview Method

Marital Status

Educational Attainment

Natalie

F

25

Australia

In person

Married

Bachelors

Matthew

M

28

Hungary

Instant message

Single

Post-graduate

Sage

F

31

Australia

In person

In relationship

Bachelors

Carol

F

23

Germany/Hungary

Instant message

Single

Bachelors

Bird

F

29

Netherlands

Instant Message

Single

Post-graduate

Sally

F

24

Australia

In person

Single

Post-graduate

Camilla

F

30

Australia/Brazil

In person

Single

Post-gradate

Eva

F

25

Australia

In person

In relationship

Post-graduate

Irene

F

31

Australia/Norway

In person

Single

Post-graduate

Zoe

F

21

Australia

In person

In relationship

Bachelors

Marie

F

22

Germany

Instant message

In relationships

Bachelors

Paula

F

31

Australia

In person

Single

Bachelors

Mark

M

30

Australia

In person

In relationship

Post-graduate

Brendon

M

27

Australia

In person

In relationship

Bachelors

Chloe

F

32

England

Phone

Single

Bachelors

Kathryn

F

38

England

Instant message

Not disclosed

Bachelors

Joseph

M

26

Australia

In person

In relationship

High school

Candace

F

31

Slovenia

Instant message

Single

Bachelors

Andrea

F

37

Australia/Canada

In person

Single

Bachelors

Kate

F

48

Australia

In person

Married

Bachelors

Madeleine

F

24

Germany

Instant message

In relationship

Bachelors

Chloe

F

33

England

Instant message

Single

High school

Ethan

M

26

United States

Instant message

Single

High school

Martha

F

65

Australia

Phone

Married

Bachelors

Lisa

F

41

Australia

Phone

Single

Post-graduate




Mahesh

M

31

Australia

In person

In relationship

Post-graduate

Lara

F

37

Portugal

Phone

In relationship

Bachelors

Todd

M

28

Australia

In person

In relationship

Bachelors

Mandy

F

28

Australia

Instant message

Married

High school

Joshua

M

30

United States

Instant Message

Single

High school

Chain Referral Sampling: Techniques and Limitations
The sample above was generated through chain-referral sampling also sometimes referred to as a snowball sample. Before proceeding a distinction needs to be drawn between chain-referral sampling and respondent-driven sampling (RDS). While respondent-driven sampling is a form of chain-referral sampling, there are a few key differences. As with chain-referral sampling, RDS asks participants to recruit their peers into the study. These recruits are then asked to recruit their peers, and so on until the target sample size is reached (Paquette, Bryant and de Wit 2011). However, RDS is concerned with creating statistically significant samples in a way that chain-referral sampling is not (Kogan et al. 2011).
Chain-referral sampling means that research is conducted in a networked fashion and is a series of referrals that are made within a circle of people who know each other. Most commonly, chain referral sampling is used to access hidden populations and has been used in research examining drugs users (Paquette et al. 2011) and LGBT identities (Browne 2005), or groups at risk of contracting HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) (Heckathron et al. 1999). Chain-referral or respondent-driven sampling is useful for sampling populations that for various social, legal or moral reasons have very low visibility, thus presenting problems for locating and contacting respondents. This chain referral sampling in these instances is used out of necessity. For this research, chain-referral sampling helped maintain the characteristics of Facebook – that is, its networked nature – which is essential in creating a case study that deals appropriately with Facebook as a structuring object.
Chain-referral sampling is also an appropriate method when considering the size of the population in which I am interested (Facebook users). Facebook as an object of study is too diffuse and diverse to construct a rigorous purposive sample. However, creating a case study enables a deep examination of my network and allows the insight gleaned from this case to be theoretically inferred to other networks or individuals that have similar characteristics. For a project that examines Facebook, taking an approach that highlights the networked nature of Facebook was necessary. As will be discussed later, Facebook does have a tendency towards homophily given the emphasis of Facebook’s architecture on recreating offline social connections online. To control for these factors meant losing some of the characteristic of Facebook as a technology. Furthermore, Coleman (1958) argues that chain-referral sampling is a method uniquely appropriate to sociological research given its ability to sample natural interactional units (such as those found on Facebook). As such, this is not a study of Facebook as a case, but of a network on Facebook, which can be understood as a loosely configured interactional network centred on myself.

The use of chain-referral sampling in social science research is not without critique. Some of the criticisms levelled at chain referral sampling are: bias in the choice of initial subjects; differential recruitment by participants; differences in network sizes among participants; and a tendency towards homophily (Kogan et al. 2011). Homophily is a concept used to describe the homogeneity of social networks based on the idea that individuals are more likely to form and sustain social relationships with those who share similar characteristics (McPherson et al. 2011). Homophily occurs on both individual, intrapersonal and sociodemographic levels (McPherson et al. 2011). Homophilous networks are most strikingly visible on levels such as ethnicity, gender and occupational status (McPherson et al. 2011). The primary criticism of chain-referral sampling is that is that is not random and selects individuals on the basis of the social networks (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981; Baxter and Eyles 1997; Faugier and Sargeant, 1997). The goal of this research is to engage in a sustained way with the structural logic of Facebook, which is the social network, in order to better understand some of the forces behind some of the patterns observed.



Download 0.57 Mb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   ...   83




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling