IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v57y2023i6d10.1007_s11135-023-01615-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Vicente

    (ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Paula Vicente, 2023. "Sampling Twitter users for social science research: evidence from a systematic review of the literature," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 5449-5489, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01615-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01615-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01615-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01615-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:57:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01615-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.