Mixed Methods in Research on the Psychology of the Internet and Social Media

Abstract

Research on the psychology of the Internet and social media (POISM) is characterized by a heavy methodological compartmentalization. In the current contribution we show empirically that 1. quantitative methods constitute the preferred gold standard of the field's mainstream (favored over qualitative and mixed methods), 2. the field is divided into separate communities of practice (psychology, communication, cultural/media studies), each with their own type of causal claims and associated methods. To show this we content analyze published articles in 2020 across six pertinent POISM journals for instances of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods as well as regularity-type versus subjective meaning-type causal logic. We find that regularity-type causal logic is at the center of quantitative research practices in psychology and communication, while qualitative subjective meaning-type causal logic is adopted by scholars in cultural/media studies, with hardly any overlap in between, and only few mixed methods studies. To describe how the research area would profit from mixed methods approaches, we subsequently present a mixed methods study about social media-based integration patterns of Korean and Turkish-heritage individuals in Germany. We conclude by dissolving some of the exclusive stereotyped notions of causality and methods in POISM research and suggest avenues for methodologically more inclusive practices of inquiry.

Keywords

• methodological integration
• communities of practice
• mixed methods
• media psychology
• communication
• media studies
• cultural studies
• causality
• causality concepts