Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Internet and Research Methods in the Study of Sex Research: Investigating the Good, the Bad, and the (Un)ethical

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

  • 404 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet has thoroughly revolutionized sex. On an individual level, the technology has become a key source in exploring sexuality, researching sexual interests, and participating in erotic activity, both vicariously and potentially even physically. For scholars, the Internet has given effortless access to academic databases and archives, to social media sites and public diaries, and notably to a world of possible research participants, in turn dramatically altering the ways sex gets studied. This chapter outlines, analyzes, and problematizes the use of the Internet in sex research, drawing on a wide range of literature on research ethics as well as my own background as a sex researcher, an author of a range of recent material specifically about the Internet, a supervisor of several dissertations on new media, and a long-time member of my university’s human ethics committee.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 649.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ammaturo FR. Spaces of pride: a visual ethnography of gay pride parades in Italy and the United Kingdom. Soc Mov Stud. 2016;15(1):19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford C. Queer theory, cyber-ethnographies and researching online sex environments. Inf Commun Technol Law. 2009;18(3):297–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attwood F. Intimate adventures: sex blogs, sex ‘blooks’ and women’s sexual narration. Eur J Cult Stud. 2009;12(1):5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach J, Dohy J. Ethical and legal considerations for crafting rigorous online sex trafficking research methodology. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2015;12:317–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros AB, Dias SF, Martins MO. Hard-to-reach populations of men who have sex with men and sex workers: a systematic review on sampling methods. System Rev. 2015;4:141–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biel J, Gatica-Perez D. The YouTube lens: crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans Multimedia. 2013;15(1):41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binik YM, Kenneth M, Kiesler S. Ethical issues in conducting sex research on the internet. J Sex Res. 1999;36(1):82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blevins KR, Holt T. Examining the virtual subculture of Johns. Contemp Ethnogr. 2009;38(5):619–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostwick W, Hequembourg AL. Minding the noise: conducting health research among bisexual populations and beyond. J Homosex. 2013;60:655–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton LJ, Bruening JE. Technology and method intersect in the online focus group. Quest. 2003;55(4):315–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardell K. Dear world: contemporary uses of the diary. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen K. Sex memoirs. Am Book Rev. 2013;34(6):12–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordoba-Pachon JR, Loureiro-Koechlin C. Online ethnography: a study of software developers and software development. Balt J Manag. 2015;10(2):188–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulson N. Online research methods for psychologists. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin H, Wakefield K. Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qual Res. 2014;14(5):603–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey S, Zheng T. Ethical research with sex workers: anthropological approaches. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fay D, Haddadi H, Seto MC, Wang H, Kling C. An exploration of fetish social networks and communities. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2015:195–204. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.01436v1.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2016.

  • Flanagan P. Ethical review and reflexivity in research of children’s sexuality. Sex Educ. 2012;12(5):535–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullwood C, Melrose K, Morris N, Floyd S. Sex, blogs, and baring your soul: factors influencing UK blogging strategies. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):345–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greener I. Designing social research: a guide for the bewildered. London: Sage; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths MD. The use of online methodologies in data collection for gambling and gaming addictions. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2010;8(1):8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grouse F. Becoming Mireila: a virtual ethnography through the eyes of an avatar. In: Brabazon T, editor. Digital dialogues and community 2.0: after avatars, trolls and puppets. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2012. p. 105–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hague P, Hague N, Morgan C. Market research in practice: how to get greater insight from your market. Philadelphia: Kogan Page; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hightower J. Producing desirable bodies: boundary work in a lesbian niche dating dite. Sexualities. 2015;18(1/2):20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine C. Virtual ethnography: modes, varieties, affordances. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The Sage handbook of online research methods. London: Sage; 2008. p. 257–70.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Im E, Wonshik C. Recruitment of research participants through the Internet. Comput Inf Nurs. 2004;22(5):289–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine J. Disorders of desire: sex and gender in modern American sexology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CW. ‘The first step is the two-step’: hegemonic masculinity and dancing in a country-western gay bar. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2005;18(4):445–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly C. Permission to cheat: ethnography of a swingers’ convention. Sex Conv. 2016;20(1):56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch SC, Mueller B, Kruse L, Zumbach J. Constructing gender in chat rooms. Sex Roles. 2005;53(1–2):29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenihan A, Kelly-Holmes. Virtual ethnography. In: Hua Z, editor. Research methods in intercultural communication: a practical guide. Malden: Wiley; 2016. p. 255–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable. London: SAGE; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg S. Social media, social genres: making sense of the ordinary. New York: Routledge; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovink G. Zero comments: blogging and critical internet culture. New York: Routledge; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madge C. Developing a geographers’ agenda for online research ethics. Prog Hum Geogr. 2007;31(5):654–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallon T. A book of one’s own: people and their diaries. New York: Ticknow & Fields; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteya RM, Stromer-Galleyb J, Banksc J, Wud J, Consalvoe M. The strategic female: gender-switching and player behavior in online games. Inf Commun Soc. 2014;17(3):286–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack M. Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. J Soc Pers Relat. 2014;31(4):475–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott E, Roen K. Youth on the ‘virtual’ edge: researching marginalized sexualities and genders online. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(4):560–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer IH, Wilson PA. Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(1):23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muise A. Women’s sex blogs: challenging dominant discourses of heterosexual desire. Fem Psychol. 2011;21(3):411–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray DM, Fisher JD. The Internet: a virtually untapped tool for research. J Technol Hum Serv. 2002;19(2–3):5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Nuenen T. Here I am: authenticity and self-branding on travel blogs. Tour Stud. 2016;16(2):192–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paasonen S. Labors of love: Netporn, Web 2.0 and the meanings of amateurism. New Media Soc. 2010;12(8):1297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid DJ, Reid FM. Online focus groups: an in-depth comparison of computer mediated and conventional focus group discussions. Int J Mark Res. 2005;47:131–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts L. Opportunities and constraints of electronic research. In: Reynolds RA, Woods R, Baker JD, editors. Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurements. Hershey: Idea Group Reference; 2007. p. 19–27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roller M, Lavrakas PJ. Applied qualitative research design: a total quality framework approach. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Part-time perverts: sex, pop culture and kink management. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. American taboo: the forbidden words, unspoken rules, and secret morality of popular culture. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Masturbation in pop culture: screen, society, self. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. School of shock: film, television and anal education. Sex Educ. 2015;15(4):553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Intimacy on the internet: media representations of online connections. New York: Routledge; 2016a.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Cyberbullies, cyberactivists, eyberpredators: film, TV, and Internet stereotypes. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2016b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Cinema and cyberphobia: Internet clichés in film and television. Aust J Telecommun Digit Econ. 2016c;4(1):36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosewarne L. Choose your own (miss) adventure: single ladyhood in 2016. Meanjin. 2016d;75(3):32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrooten M. Moving ethnography online: researching Brazilian migrants’ online togetherness. Ethnic Racial Stud. 2012;35(1):1794–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrman A. Access and gatekeeping in researching children’s sexuality: mess in ethics and methods. Sex Cult. 2014;18:291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J. Getting off on sex research: a methodological commentary on the sexual desires of sex researchers. Sexualities. 2016;19(1):83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiefer L. New perspectives in sexology: from rigor (mortis) to richness. J Sex Res. 1991;28(4):593–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waclawski E. How I use it: Survey Monkey. Occup Med. 2012;62:477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G, Bondil P, Dabees K, Dean J, Fourcroy J, Gingell C, Kingsberg S, Kothari P, Rubio-Aurioles E, Ugarte F, Navarrete RV. Ethical aspects of sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2004;2(1):163–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waynberg J. 1908–2008: a century of sexology and still no legitimacy? Theol Sex. 2009;18(1):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • White GE, Thomson AN. Anonymized focus groups as a research tool for health professionals. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:256–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead G. The evidence of things unseen: authenticity and fraud in the Christian mommy blogosphere. J Am Acad Relig. 2015;83(1):120–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood EA. Consciousness-raising 2.0: sex blogging and the creation of a feminist sex commons. Fem Psychol. 2008;18(4):480–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T. What ever happened to Google Books? The New Yorker, September 11. 2015. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happened-to-google-books. Accessed 10 June 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Lauren Rosewarne

Authors
  1. Lauren Rosewarne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Rosewarne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Rosewarne, L. (2019). The Internet and Research Methods in the Study of Sex Research: Investigating the Good, the Bad, and the (Un)ethical. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_140

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation