Читать книгу Politics of Disinformation - Группа авторов - Страница 13

An analysis of the methodologies used in studies on disinformation (Table 1.6) shows that a qualitative approach is the most widely used (55.5%), followed by the quantitative approach (32%) and mixed solutions (12.4%). Additionally, there is a greater proliferation of single-method studies. Contributions that focus on reviews of the literature or essays, which are often difficult to distinguish, have been the most numerous (27%) and 6correspond to an initial stage marked by a concern for conceptual precision, with complex equivalences in the different languages.

Table 1.6 Methods employed articles on disinformation in WoS

	Qualitative	Quantitative	Mixed	Matches	%	Sample
			SINGLE-METHOD
Case study	36		2	38	8.8	Fletcher et al. 2020
Content analysis	30	23	26	79	18.2	Engesser et al. 2017
Ethnography	11			11	2.5	Farkas et al. 2018
Experimental designs (survey)		44		44	10.1	Bode and Vraga 2015
Focus group	5			5	1.2	Amazeen 2019
Interview	26			26	6.0	Brandtzaeg et al. 2016
Literature review/essay	115	1	1	117	27.0	Tandoc et al. 2018
Network analysis6 clusters		8		8	1.8	Brummette et al. 2018
Survey		57	6	63	14.5	Weeks 2015
Web analytics		2	1	3	0.7	Nelson and Taneja 2018
			MULTI-METHOD
Content analysis + ethnography			1	1	0.2	Lu and Pan 2020
Content analysis + focus group			1	1	0.2	Kim et al. 2018
Content analysis + interview	4	0	4	8	1.8	Silver and Matthews 2017
Content analysis + interview + ethnography	1		2	3	0.7	Ritonga and Syahputra 2019
Content analysis + interview + focus group	1			1	0.2	Mwesige 2009
Content analysis + network analysis		1	3	4	0.9	Khaldarova and Pantti 2016
Content analysis + survey		2	2	4	0.9	Jerit and Barabas 2006
	Qualitative	Quantitative	Mixed	Matches	%	Sample
Content analysis + survey + interview			1	1	0.2	Palomo and Sedano 2018
Ethnography + literature review6	1			1	0.2	Aparici et al. 2019
Interview + case study	2			2	0.5	Gilboa 2003
Interview + focus group	2			2	0.5	Meyen et al. 2016
Interview + ethnography	5			5	1.2	Srinivasan 2014
Survey + interview	2	1	4	7	1.6	Blanco-Herrero and Arcila-Calderon 2019
TOTAL	241	139	54	434	100

The most widely used instruments for data gathering are the survey (29.4%) and content analysis (21.7%). The majority of surveys are conducted using an online panel, making use of companies that specialize in market studies to ensure high participation. One of those most utilized by researchers is Amazon Mechanical Turk or MTurk (Furman and Tunç 2019; Edgerly and Vraga 2020), but others also appear on the list, like Qualtrics (Garrett and Poulsen 2019), GfK, YouGov, and Nielsen IBOPE. Only Weeks and Garrett (2014) have had recourse to telephone surveys, which they used to analyze rumors during the 2008 presidential campaign in the United States.

Technological advance has facilitated the use of tools for gathering massive data, which speeds up content analysis. Several authors use Media Cloud, an open-source platform for media analysis. Monitoring news coverage is complemented by the identification of keywords, the creation of word clouds, word counts, and even geocoding all the stories and showing the results on a map. To recover historical archives published in a web format they have recourse to Archive.org, although some studies use the database of the GDELT Project, which extracts content from Google News (Guo and Vargo 2020).

Resources used for social media monitoring include Brandwatch or Netlytic, a cloud-based analyzer that uses public APIs to collect posts from Twitter and YouTube. Botometer enables the detection of possible messages by bots. For analyzing social media they also use UCINET, Gephi, and NodeXL.

Regarding the software that enables data to be stored, transcribed, and codified, mention is made in the sample of some as well known as ATLAS.ti, NVivo, and MAXQDA. R is also employed for computational text analysis. Additionally, the majority of the statistical analyses use SPSS software.