Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T02:06:16.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - How Internet-Mediated Research Changes Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Ulf-Dietrich Reips
Edited by
Azy Barak
Ulf-Dietrich Reips
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Azy Barak
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israel
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Science and the Internet: Its most appealing, usable, and integrating component, the World Wide Web, came from its laboratories. Fifteen years after the invention of the web, it has become such an integral part of the infrastructure of modern societies that young people cannot imagine a world without it. It has become even easier to imagine a world without roads and cars than a world without the World Wide Web.

Time to ask in what ways the Internet had and is having an impact on science. How is what once came from the laboratory influencing that laboratory's structure and the researchers working in it? In particular, how is it influencing the way research is conducted? Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web at CERN in Geneva, wrote in 1998:

The dream behind the Web is of a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information. Its universality is essential: the fact that a hypertext link can point to anything, be it personal, local or global, be it draft or highly polished. There was a second part of the dream, too, dependent on the Web being so generally used that it became a realistic mirror (or in fact the primary embodiment) of the ways in which we work and play and socialize. That was that once the state of our interactions was on line, we could then use computers to help us analyse it, make sense of what we are doing, where we individually fit in, and how we can better work together.

Type
Chapter
Information
Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace
Theory, Research, Applications
 , pp. 268 - 294
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., Messerschmitt, D. G.. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure. Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/atkins.pdf.Google Scholar
Bandilla, W., Bosnjak, M., Kaczmirek, L., & Neubarth, W. (2004). Progress indicators in filter based surveys: Computing methods and their impact on drop out. Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology: Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Barak, A., & Buchanan, T. (2004). Internet-based psychological testing and assessment. In Kraus, R., Zack, J., & Stricker, G. (Eds.), Online counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals (pp. 217–239). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barak, A., & Hen, L. (2007). Exposure in cyberspace as means of enhancing psychological assessment. In Barak, A. (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barak, A., & Miron, O. (2005). Writing characteristics of suicidal people on the Internet: A psychological investigation of emerging social environments. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, 35, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berners-Lee, T. (1998). The World Wide Web: A very short personal history. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory.html.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2001). A web-based program of research on decision making. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 23–55). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. H., & Reips, U.-D. (2005). Behavioral research and data collection via the Internet. In Proctor, R. W. & Vu, K.-P. L. (Eds.), The handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 471–492). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bohner, G., Danner, U. N., Siebler, F., & Samson, G. B. (2002). Rape myth acceptance and judgments of vulnerability to sexual assault: An Internet experiment. Experimental Psychology, 49, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnjak, M. (2001). Participation in non-restricted web surveys: A typology and explanatory model for item non-response. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 193–208). Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
Brenner, V. (2002). Generalizability issues in Internet-based survey research: Implications for the Internet addiction controversy. In Batinic, B., Reips, U. D., & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 93–113). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2006). Scientific communication and the dematerialization of scholarship. ProQuest Discovery Guides. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/scholarship/review.pdf.Google Scholar
Buchanan, T. (2001). Online personality assessment. In Reips, U. D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 57–74). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Buchanan, T., Ali, T., Heffernan, T. M., Ling, J., Parrott, A. C., Rodgers, J.. (2005). Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 148–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, T., Johnson, J. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). Implementing a five-factor personality inventory for use on the Internet. Europe an Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, T., & Reips, U.-D. (2001). Platform-dependent biases in online research: Do Mac users really think different? Paper presented at German Online Research conference, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, R. (2004, November). Citeulike: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.citeulike.org/faq/all.adp.Google Scholar
Cohn, M. A., Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 687–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, M. S., Bedesian, A. G., & Feild, H. S. (2006). The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connes, B. (1972). The use of electronic desk computers in psychological experiments. Journal of Structural Learning, 3, 51–72.Google Scholar
Deutskens, E., Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. Journal of Service Research, 8, 346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 159–178). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., & Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing Web surveys. SESRC Technical Report 98-50. Pullman, WA.Google Scholar
Directory of Open Access Journals. (2006). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.doaj.org/.
Freeman, L. C. (1984). The impact of computer based communication on the social structure of an emergent scientific specialty. Social Networks, 6, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, A., Bächtiger, M. T., & Reips, U.-D. (2001). Financial incentives, personal information and drop-out in online studies. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 209–219). Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
Fritsche, I., & Linneweber, V. (2006). Non-reactive methods in psychological research. In Eid, M. & Diener, E. (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 189–203). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göritz, A. S. (2006). Incentives in Web studies: Methodological issues and a review. International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 58–70.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1995). A subversive proposal. In Okerson, A. & O'Donnell, J. (Eds.), Scholarly journals at the crossroads: A subversive proposal for electronic publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (2001). For whom the gate tolls? How and why to free the refereed research literature online through author/institution self-archiving, now. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm.
Heerwegh, D. (2006). An investigation of the effect of lotteries on web survey response rates. Field Methods, 18, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, D., & Loosveldt, G. (2006). An experimental study on the effects of personalization, survey length statements, progress indicators, and survey sponsor logos in web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 22, 191–210.Google Scholar
Hiskey, S., & Troop, N. A. (2002). Online longitudinal survey research: Viability and participation. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, S., Brody, T., Gutteridge, C., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2003). The impact of OAI-based search on access to research journal papers. Serials, 16 (3). Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://opcit.eprints.org/serials-short/serials11.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoggatt, A. C. (1977). On the uses of computers for experimental control and data acquisition. American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Personalized salutation, power of sender and response rates to Web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1372–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joinson, A. N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Personalization, authentication and self-disclosure in self-administered Internet surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, J. H. (2001). Stimulus delivery on the Web: What can be presented when calibration isn't possible. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 113–130). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
Krantz, J. H., Ballard, J., & Scher, J. (1997). Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, J. H., & Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.), Psychological Experiments on the Internet (pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature, 411 (6837), 521. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, K. H., Winzelberg, A. J., Das, S., Osborne, M. I., Bryson, S. W., & Taylor, C. B. (2007). Reliability of self-report: Paper versus online administration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1384–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, M., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Sleep, sex, and the Web: Surveying the difficult-to-reach clinical population suffering from sexsomnia. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matzat, U. (2002). Academic communication and Internet discussion groups: What kinds of benefits for whom? In Batinic, B., Reips, U.-D., & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 383–402). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M., Osborne, K. K., & Ellison, N. B. (1997). Virtual community in a Telepresence environment. In Jones, S. (Ed.), Virtual culture (pp. 146–168). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In Merton, R. K. (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Reprint 1973].Google Scholar
Musch, J., Bröder, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2001). Improving survey research on the World-Wide Web using the randomized response technique. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 179–192). Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
Musch, J., & Reips, U.-D. (2000). A brief history of Web experimenting. In Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 61–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet and society: A preliminary report. IT & Society, 1, 275–283.Google Scholar
Obrenovic, Z., Starcevic, D., Jovanov, E., & Radivojevic, V. (2002). An agent based framework for virtual medical devices. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 659–660, Bologna, Italy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neil, K. M., & Penrod, S. D. (2001). Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 33, 226–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preckel, F., & Thiemann, H. (2003). Online versus paper-pencil version of a high potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (1997). Forschen im Jahr 2007: Integration von Web-Experimentieren, Online-Publizieren und Multimedia-Kommunikation [Science in the year 2007: Integration of web experimenting, online publishing, and multimedia communication]. In Janetzko, D., Batinic, B., Schoder, D., Mattingley-Scott, M., & Strube, G. (Eds.), CAW-97. Beiträge zum Workshop “Cognition & Web” (pp. 141–148). Freiburg: IIG-Berichte 1/97.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (1998). Forschung in der Zukunft [Future Science]. In Krüger, T. & Funke, J. (Eds.), Psychologie im Internet: Ein Wegweiser für psychologisch interessierte User (pp. 115–123). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2000). The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages and solutions. In Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2002a). Context effects in Web surveys. In Batinic, B., Reips, U.-D., & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 69–79). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2002b). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five don'ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 241–249.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2002c). Standards for Internet experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2006). Internet-basierte Methoden [Internet-based methods]. In Petermann, F. & Eid, M. (Eds.), Handbuch der Psychologischen Diagnostik (pp. 218–225). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D. (2007). The methodology of Internet-based experiments. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 373–390). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D., & Franek, L. (2004). Mitarbeiterbefragungen per Internet oder Papier? Der Einfluss von Anonymität, Freiwilligkeit und Alter auf das Antwortverhalten [Employee surveys via Internet or paper? The influence of anonymity, voluntariness and age on answering behavior]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 6(1), 67–83.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D., & Funke, F. (in press). Interval level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D., & Lengler, R. (2005). The web experiment list: A web service for the recruitment of participants and archiving of Internet-based experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reips, U.-D., & Matzat, U. (2006). Internet science and open access: First day of a honeymoon. International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 1–3.Google Scholar
Reips, U.-D., Morger, V., & Meier, B. (2001). “Fünfe gerade sein lassen”: Listenkontexteffekte beim Kategorisieren [“Letting five be equal”: List context effects in categorization]. Unpublished manuscript, retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.psychologie.unizh.ch/sowi/reips/papers/re_mo_me2001.pdf.
Reips, U.-D., & Stieger, S. (2004). Scientific LogAnalyzer: A Web-based tool for analyses of server log files in psychological research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 304–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment: An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. C. (1997). World Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. C. (2001). Presentation accuracy of web animation methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, W. C. (2007). Technical considerations when implementing online research. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 461–472). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, S., & Reips, U.-D. (2001). CGI versus JavaScript: A Web experiment on the reversed hindsight bias. In Reips, U.-D. & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet Science (pp. 75–90). Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
Smither, J. W., Walker, A. G., & Yap, M. K. T. (2004). An examination of the equivalence of web-based versus paper-and-pencil upward feedback ratings: Rater- and ratee-level analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., & Christian, L. M. (2007). Context effects in Internet surveys: New issues and evidence. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 429–446). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. J. (2006). Effects of using visual design principles to group response options in Web surveys. International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 5–15.Google Scholar
Stegbauer, C., & Rausch, A. (2002). Lurking in mailing lists. In Batinic, B., Reips, U.-D., & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 263–274). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Stieger, S., Reips, U.-D., & Voracek, M. (2007). Forced response in online surveys: bias from reactance and an increase in sex-specific dropout. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1653–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, A. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An introduction. Technical Report, JISC, HEFCE. Truro: Key Perspectives Limited.Google Scholar
University of Nottingham. (2006). Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving: The SHERPA/ROMEO list. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?all=yes.
Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Wider access and narrower focus: Could the Internet balkanize science? Science, 274, 1479–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, O., & McKnight, P. E. (2002). Ability and achievement testing on the World Wide Web. In Batinic, B., Reips, U.-D., & Bosnjak, M. (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 151–180). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, O., Witthöft, A., McKnight, P., & Größler, A. (1999). On the psychometric quality of new ability tests administered using the WWW. In Reips, U.-D., Batinic, B., Bandilla, W., Bosnjak, M., Gräf, L., Moser, K., & Werner, A. (Eds.), Current Internet science – trends, techniques, results. Aktuelle Online Forschung – Trends, Techniken, Ergebnisse. Zürich: Online Press. Available URL: http://gor.de/gor99/tband99/.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×