Smartphones are increasingly used to advance mobile media methods. The devices’ capabilities to automatically log behavioural data as well as the integration of this log data into qualitative interviews for elicitation purposes promise increased validity. The paper argues that despite recent efforts in mixed methods, the methodological potential of the personalized user interfaces of smartphones has been overlooked. As these smartphone interfaces are the result of continuous personalization processes, they can be seen as snapshots of the phone’s current use. Thus, this form of data should have strong explanatory powers for understanding the related mobile media practices. The paper discusses the implications of this interface-based approach with two example studies where smartphone interfaces were integrated into qualitative interviews. It concludes that the approach is a useful addition to existing mobile media methods and enforces the notion that researchers need to discover new forms of data.
AroldiP.VittadiniN. (2015). Audiences as socio-technical actors: The “styles” of social network site users. In ZellerF.PonteC.O’NeillB. (Eds.), Revitalising audience research: Innovations in European audience research (pp. 195–214). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BarkhuusL.PolicharV. E. (2011). Empowerment through seamfulness: Smart phones in everyday life. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 15, 629–639.
3.
BjurJ.SchrøderK. C.HasebrinkU.CourtoisC.AdoniH.NossekH. (2014). Cross-media use: Unfolding complexities in contemporary audiencehood. In CarpentierN.SchrøderK. C.HallettL. (Eds.), Audience transformations: Shifting audience positions in late modernity (pp. 15–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BlomJ. O.MonkA. F. (2003). Theory of personalization of appearance: Why users personalize their PCs and mobile phones. Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 193–338.
5.
BoaseJ. (2013). Implications of software-based mobile media for social research. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 57–62.
6.
BoaseJ.LingR. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: Self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 18(4), 508–519.
7.
BødkerS.ChristiansenE. (2012). Poetry in motion: Appropriation of the world of apps. Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 78–84). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2448136.2448152
8.
BöhmerM.KrügerA. (2013). A study on icon arrangement by smartphone users. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2137–2146). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2470654.2481294
9.
BouwmanH.de ReuverM.HeerschapN.VerkasaloH. (2013). Opportunities and problems with automated data collection via smartphones. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 63–68.
10.
CampbellS. W.ParkY. J. (2008). Social implications of mobile technology: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371–387.
11.
CouldryN. (2011). The necessary future of the audience. . . and how to research it. In NightingaleV. (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 213–229). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12.
CouldryN.HeppA. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
13.
DeanJ. (2015). Apps and drive. In HermanA.HadlawJ.SwissT. (Eds.), Theories of the mobile Internet (pp. 232–248). New York, NY: Routledge.
De ReuverM.NikouS.BouwmanH. (2016). Domestication of smartphones and mobile applications: A quantitative mixed-method study. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 347–370.
16.
DoT.-M.-T.Gatica-PerezD. (2010). By their apps you shall understand them: Mining large-scale patterns of mobile phone usage. MUM ‘10 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia.New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1899475.1899502
17.
DoornN. V. (2013). Assembling the affective field: How smartphone technology impacts ethnographic research practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(5), 385–396.
18.
DowlingR.LloydK.Suchet-PearsonS. (2015). Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 697–686.
19.
FarmanJ. (2015). The materiality of locative media: On the invisible infrastructures of mobile networks. In HermanA.HadlawJ.SwissT. (Eds.), Theories of the mobile Internet (pp. 45–59). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
FrithJ. (2015). Smartphones as locative media. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
21.
GarciaB.WelfordJ.SmithB. (2016). Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Qualitative Research, 16(5), 508–525.
22.
GillespieT.BoczkowskiP. J.FootK. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
GogginG. (2009). Adapting the mobile phone: The iPhone and its consumption. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(2), 231–244.
24.
GogginG. (2011). Ubiquitous apps: Politics of openness in global mobile cultures. Digital Creativity, 22(3), 148–159.
25.
GoldsmithB. (2014). The smartphone app economy and app ecosystems. In GogginG.HjorthL. (Eds.), Routledge companion to mobile media (pp. 171–180). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
HammersleyM. (2009). Assessing validity in social research. In AlasuutariP.BickmanL.BranneJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 42–53). London, UK: SAGE.
27.
HasebrinkU.DomeyerH. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations, 9(2), 757–779.
28.
HellesR. (2016). Theorising individual media use: Mobile media in everyday life. In SandvikK.ThorhaugeA. M.ValtyssonB. (Eds.), The media and the mundane: Communication across media in everyday life (pp. 31–44). Göteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.
29.
HightC. (2015). Software studies and the new audiencehood of the digital economy. In ZellerF.PonteC.O’NeillB. (Eds.), Revitalising audience research: Innovations in European audience research (pp. 62–79). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
HjorthL.BurgessJ.RichardsonI. (Eds.). (2012). Studying mobile media: Cultural technologies, mobile communication, and the iPhone. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
HorstH.HjorthL. (2013). Engaging practices: Doing personalized media. In PriceS.JewittC.BrownB. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of digital technology research (pp. 87–101). London, UK: SAGE.
32.
JensenK. B. (2012). Lost, found, and made: Qualitative data in the study of three-step flows of communication. In VolkmerI. (Ed.), Handbook of global media research (pp. 435–450). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
33.
JensenK. B. (2014). Audiences, audiences everywhere—measured, interpreted and imagined. In PatricharcheG.BilandzicH.JensenJ. L.JurišićJ. (Eds.), Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation (pp. 227–240). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
JinB. S.YoonS. H.JiY. G. (2013). Development of a continuous usage model for the adoption and continuous usage of a smartphone. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 29(9), 563–581.
35.
JonesP.DruryR.McBeathJ. (2011). Using GPS-enabled mobile computing to augment qualitative interviewing: Two case studies. Field Methods, 23(2), 173–187.
36.
KaufmannK. (2015). Die Rolle des Smartphones im Einkaufsalltag: Erkenntnisse aus einer qualitativen Nutzerstudie [The role of the smartphone in everyday shopping contexts: Insights from a qualitative user study]. kommunikation @ gesellschaft, 16. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-423023
37.
KaufmannK. (2016). Wie nutzen Flüchtlinge ihre Smartphones auf der Reise nach Europa? Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Interview-Studie mit syrischen Schutzsuchenden in Österreich. [How do refugees use smartphones on their journey to Europe? Results from a qualitative interview study with Syrian protection seekers in Austria]. SWS-Rundschau, 56(3), 319–342.
38.
KobayashiT.BoaseJ. (2012). No such effect? The implications of measurement error in self-report measures of mobile communication use. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 126–143.
39.
KubitschkoS.KaunA. (2016). Innovative methods in media and communication research: An outlook. In KubitschkoS.KaunA. (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 311–320). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
KumarN. (2016). Interviewing against the odds. In KubitschkoS.KaunA. (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 207–220). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
LapentaF. (2011). Some theoretical and methodological views on photo-elicitation. In MargolisE.PauwelsL. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 201–213). London, UK: SAGE.
42.
LightB.BurgessJ.DuguayS. (2016). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1461444816675438
43.
LingR. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
LobingerK. (2016). “Creative” and participatory visual approaches in audience research. In KubitschkoS.KaunA. (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 293–310). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
MarotzkiW.HolzeJ.VerständigD. (2014). Analysing virtual data. In FlickU. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 450–464). London, UK: SAGE.
46.
MarresN. (2016). Technology. In KubitschkoS.KaunA. (Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 75–80). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
MathieuD.BritesM. J. (2015). Expanding the reach of the interview in audience and reception research: The performative and participatory models of interview. In ZellerF.PonteC.O’NeillB. (Eds.), Revitalising audience research: Innovations in European audience research (pp. 44–61). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
MoylanC. A.DerrA. S.LindhorstT. (2015). Increasingly mobile: How new technologies can enhance qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 14(1), 36–47.
49.
NagyP.NeffG. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–9.
50.
ØrmenJ.ThorhaugeA. M. (2015). Smartphone log data in a qualitative perspective. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(3), 335–350.
51.
ÖzkulD. (2017). Placing mobile ethnography: Mobile communication as a practice of place making. In HjorthL.HorstH.GallowayA.BellG. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography (pp. 221–232). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
PackerJ.Crofts WileyS. B. (Eds.). (2012). Communication matters: Materialist approaches to media, mobility and networks. London, UK: Routledge.
53.
PinkS.SinananJ.HjorthL.HorstH. (2016). Tactile digital ethnography: Researching mobile media through the hand. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(2), 237–251.
54.
RaentoM.OulasvirtaA.EagleN. (2009). Smartphones: An emerging tool for social scientists. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(3), 426–454.
55.
RobertsonT.KanM.SadlerK.HagenP. (2005). Uncovering traces of mobile practices: The bag study. Proceedings of the 17th Australia Conference on Computer–Human Interaction: Citizens Online: Considerations for Today and the Future (OZCHI ’05) (pp. 1–4). Narrabundah, Australia: Computer–Human Interaction Special Interest Group (CHISIG) of Australia.
56.
SnickarsP.VonderauP. (Eds.). (2012). Moving data: The iPhone and the future of media. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
57.
SpeerS. A. (2009). Natural and contrived data. In AlasuutariP.BickmanL.BranneJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 290–312). London, UK: SAGE.
58.
TaipaleS.FortunatiL. (2014). Capturing methodological trends in mobile communication studies. Information, Communication & Society, 17(5), 627–642.
59.
TanejaH.WebsterJ. G.MalthouseE. C.KsiazekT. B. (2012). Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media & Society, 14(6), 951–968.
60.
ThatcherJ. (2016). The object of mobile spatial data, the subject in mobile spatial research. Big Data & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2053951716659092
61.
TossellC. C.KortumP.ShepardC.RahmatiA.ZhongL. (2012). An empirical analysis of smartphone personalisation: Measurement and user variability. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(10), 995–1010.
62.
Vicente-MariñoM. (2014). Audience research methods: Facing the challenges of transforming audiences. In PatriarcheG.BilandzicH.JensenJ. L.JurisicJ. (Eds.), Audience research methodologies: Between innovation and consolidation (pp. 37–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
WilesR.Bengry-HowellA.CrowG.NindM. (2013). But is it innovation?: The development of novel methodological approaches in qualitative research. Methodological Innovations Online, 8, 18–33.
