Search

Die zunehmende Nutzung des Web 2.0 in verschiedenen Phasen des Forschungsprozesses führt dazu, dass qualitativ Forschende und Beforschte, teils unreflektiert, online Datenspuren ihrer Interaktionen erzeugen. Bisher wurde nur vereinzelt thematisiert, was das für veränderte Anonymitätsverhältnisse bedeutet. Mit unserem Artikel wollen wir zu der Debatte um Forschungsethik, Datenschutz und -management beitragen. Anhand eines fiktiven Fallbeispiels identifizieren wir drei Typen von Interaktionsspuren im digitalen Raum: Rekrutierungsspuren, Öffentlichkeitsarbeitsspuren und Teilnahmespuren. Diese Spuren können zur Deanonymisierung der Teilnehmenden entgegen deren Willen führen. Basierend auf einem systematischen Literaturreview zu Anonymität und Nutzung des Web 2.0 in der qualitativen Forschung schlagen wir forschungspraktische Umgangsweisen mit den identifizierten Interaktionsspuren im digitalen Raum vor und fassen diese in einer Checkliste zur Reflexion und Dokumentation eigener Tätigkeiten in den sozialen Medien zusammen. Wir wollen qualitativ Forschende für oft beiläufig online produzierte Daten sensibilisieren und zum Austausch über die vielfältigen Entscheidungen, die Forschende und Beforschte bei der Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung im Web 2.0 treffen, anregen., Qualitative researchers increasingly use Web 2.0 in various phases of the research process. Both researchers and research participants leave digital traces of their interactions online, often in an unreflective manner. The consequences for anonymity have, however, been only sporadically explored in the literature. With this article, we aim to contribute to the debate on research ethics, data protection, and data management. Based on a fictional case description, we identify three types of interaction traces in digital space: traces of recruitment, traces of public relations work, and traces of participation. These traces can lead to an involuntary and potentially detrimental de-anonymization of participants. By conducting a systematic literature review on anonymity and the use of Web 2.0 in qualitative research, we summarize practical ways of dealing with the identified traces of interaction in digital space and summarize them in a checklist for reflecting on and documenting one's own activities in social media. Our goal is to raise awareness among qualitative researchers about data that is often produced casually online and to encourage an exchange about the diverse decisions that researchers and research participants make when communicating and presenting themselves in Web 2.0.

The aim of this Working Paper is to introduce a conceptual model and study design for researching social disadvantage in rural peripheries, focusing on the interplay of social disadvantage and spatial disadvantage. The paper presents the theoretical concepts, understandings, and definitions, as well as the research design we draw on in the international research project 'Social disadvantage in rural peripheries in Czechia and eastern Germany: opportunity structures and individual agency in a comparative perspective.' The project investigates the multifaceted relationships between social disadvantage, local and regional opportunity structures, and individual agency in rural peripheries in Czechia and eastern Germany from a comparative perspective. It focuses on two sets of research questions. The first set concerns the quantitative patterns of social disadvantage and spatial disadvantage in rural areas. The second set asks about the impact of opportunity structures as part of the residential context on particularly disadvantaged groups in four case study regions. The project applies theories of peripheralization and rural restructuring, and considers social networks and individual agency. Area-level secondary data and accessibility analyses and qualitative case studies, including ego-centered network analyses and GPS mapping of time-space activity patterns, are used.