Sampling Twitter users for social science research: evidence from a systematic review of the literature

被引:4
|
作者
Vicente P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Business Research Unit (bru_ISCTE), ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Av. Forças Armadas, Lisboa
关键词
Sampling plan; Social science research; Twitter; User-level sampling;
D O I
10.1007/s11135-023-01615-w
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
All social media platforms can be used to conduct social science research, but Twitter is the most popular as it provides its data via several Application Programming Interfaces, which allows qualitative and quantitative research to be conducted with its members. As Twitter is a huge universe, both in number of users and amount of data, sampling is generally required when using it for research purposes. Researchers only recently began to question whether tweet-level sampling—in which the tweet is the sampling unit—should be replaced by user-level sampling—in which the user is the sampling unit. The major rationale for this shift is that tweet-level sampling does not consider the fact that some core discussants on Twitter are much more active tweeters than other less active users, thus causing a sample biased towards the more active users. The knowledge on how to select representative samples of users in the Twitterverse is still insufficient despite its relevance for reliable and valid research outcomes. This paper contributes to this topic by presenting a systematic quantitative literature review of sampling plans designed and executed in the context of social science research in Twitter, including: (1) the definition of the target populations, (2) the sampling frames used to support sample selection, (3) the sampling methods used to obtain samples of Twitter users, (4) how data is collected from Twitter users, (5) the size of the samples, and (6) how research validity is addressed. This review can be a methodological guide for professionals and academics who want to conduct social science research involving Twitter users and the Twitterverse. © 2023, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:5449 / 5489
页数:40
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Twitter and Research: A Systematic Literature Review Through Text Mining
    Karami, Amir
    Lundy, Morgan
    Webb, Frank
    Dwivedi, Yogesh K.
    [J]. IEEE ACCESS, 2020, 8 : 67698 - 67717
  • [2] A Systematic Literature Review of Twitter Research from a Socio-Political Revolution Perspective
    Buettner, Ricardo
    Buettner, Katharina
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 49TH ANNUAL HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES (HICSS 2016), 2016, : 2206 - 2215
  • [4] Social Networks and Protest Participation: Evidence from 130 Million Twitter Users
    Larson, Jennifer M.
    Nagler, Jonathan
    Ronen, Jonathan
    Tucker, Joshua A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 63 (03) : 690 - 705
  • [5] Sustainability in Social Enterprise Research: A Systematic Literature Review
    Jayawardhana, Kumudu
    Fernando, Imali
    Siyambalapitiya, Janaka
    [J]. SAGE OPEN, 2022, 12 (03):
  • [6] Evolution of Sustainability Reporting Research: Evidence from Indonesia (A Systematic Literature Review)
    Meutia, Inten
    Tyasari, Irma
    Kartasari, Shelly F.
    Yaacob, Zulnaidi
    [J]. INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT, 2022, 6 (01) : 50 - 70
  • [7] Twitter as a predictive system: A systematic literature review
    Enrique, Cano-Marin
    Mora-Cantallops, Marcal
    Sanchez-Alonso, Salvador
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2023, 157
  • [8] Active and Healthy Aging: A Systematic Review of the Social Science Literature
    Iantzi-Vicente, Stella
    [J]. RASP-RESEARCH ON AGEING AND SOCIAL POLICY, 2024, 12 (02): : 127 - 145
  • [9] The impact of social prescribing services on service users: a systematic review of the evidence
    Pescheny, Julia, V
    Randhawa, Gurch
    Pappas, Yannis
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 30 (04): : 664 - 673
  • [10] Science education textbook research trends: a systematic literature review
    Vojir, Karel
    Rusek, Martin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2019, 41 (11) : 1496 - 1516