The Internet and Research Methods in the Study of Sex Research: Investigating the Good, the Bad, and the (Un)ethical

  • Lauren RosewarneEmail author
Reference work entry


The Internet has thoroughly revolutionized sex. On an individual level, the technology has become a key source in exploring sexuality, researching sexual interests, and participating in erotic activity, both vicariously and potentially even physically. For scholars, the Internet has given effortless access to academic databases and archives, to social media sites and public diaries, and notably to a world of possible research participants, in turn dramatically altering the ways sex gets studied. This chapter outlines, analyzes, and problematizes the use of the Internet in sex research, drawing on a wide range of literature on research ethics as well as my own background as a sex researcher, an author of a range of recent material specifically about the Internet, a supervisor of several dissertations on new media, and a long-time member of my university’s human ethics committee.


Internet Sexuality Ethics New media Technology Sexology 


  1. Ammaturo FR. Spaces of pride: a visual ethnography of gay pride parades in Italy and the United Kingdom. Soc Mov Stud. 2016;15(1):19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashford C. Queer theory, cyber-ethnographies and researching online sex environments. Inf Commun Technol Law. 2009;18(3):297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attwood F. Intimate adventures: sex blogs, sex ‘blooks’ and women’s sexual narration. Eur J Cult Stud. 2009;12(1):5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach J, Dohy J. Ethical and legal considerations for crafting rigorous online sex trafficking research methodology. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2015;12:317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barros AB, Dias SF, Martins MO. Hard-to-reach populations of men who have sex with men and sex workers: a systematic review on sampling methods. System Rev. 2015;4:141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biel J, Gatica-Perez D. The YouTube lens: crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans Multimedia. 2013;15(1):41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binik YM, Kenneth M, Kiesler S. Ethical issues in conducting sex research on the internet. J Sex Res. 1999;36(1):82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blevins KR, Holt T. Examining the virtual subculture of Johns. Contemp Ethnogr. 2009;38(5):619–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bostwick W, Hequembourg AL. Minding the noise: conducting health research among bisexual populations and beyond. J Homosex. 2013;60:655–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton LJ, Bruening JE. Technology and method intersect in the online focus group. Quest. 2003;55(4):315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardell K. Dear world: contemporary uses of the diary. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen K. Sex memoirs. Am Book Rev. 2013;34(6):12–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cordoba-Pachon JR, Loureiro-Koechlin C. Online ethnography: a study of software developers and software development. Balt J Manag. 2015;10(2):188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulson N. Online research methods for psychologists. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Deakin H, Wakefield K. Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qual Res. 2014;14(5):603–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey S, Zheng T. Ethical research with sex workers: anthropological approaches. New York: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fay D, Haddadi H, Seto MC, Wang H, Kling C. An exploration of fetish social networks and communities. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2015:195–204. Accessed 14 June 2016.
  18. Flanagan P. Ethical review and reflexivity in research of children’s sexuality. Sex Educ. 2012;12(5):535–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fullwood C, Melrose K, Morris N, Floyd S. Sex, blogs, and baring your soul: factors influencing UK blogging strategies. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):345–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greener I. Designing social research: a guide for the bewildered. London: Sage; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths MD. The use of online methodologies in data collection for gambling and gaming addictions. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2010;8(1):8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grouse F. Becoming Mireila: a virtual ethnography through the eyes of an avatar. In: Brabazon T, editor. Digital dialogues and community 2.0: after avatars, trolls and puppets. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2012. p. 105–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hague P, Hague N, Morgan C. Market research in practice: how to get greater insight from your market. Philadelphia: Kogan Page; 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Hightower J. Producing desirable bodies: boundary work in a lesbian niche dating dite. Sexualities. 2015;18(1/2):20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hine C. Virtual ethnography: modes, varieties, affordances. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The Sage handbook of online research methods. London: Sage; 2008. p. 257–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Im E, Wonshik C. Recruitment of research participants through the Internet. Comput Inf Nurs. 2004;22(5):289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irvine J. Disorders of desire: sex and gender in modern American sexology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson CW. ‘The first step is the two-step’: hegemonic masculinity and dancing in a country-western gay bar. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2005;18(4):445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimberly C. Permission to cheat: ethnography of a swingers’ convention. Sex Conv. 2016;20(1):56–68.Google Scholar
  30. Koch SC, Mueller B, Kruse L, Zumbach J. Constructing gender in chat rooms. Sex Roles. 2005;53(1–2):29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenihan A, Kelly-Holmes. Virtual ethnography. In: Hua Z, editor. Research methods in intercultural communication: a practical guide. Malden: Wiley; 2016. p. 255–67.Google Scholar
  32. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable. London: SAGE; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  34. Lomborg S. Social media, social genres: making sense of the ordinary. New York: Routledge; 2014.Google Scholar
  35. Lovink G. Zero comments: blogging and critical internet culture. New York: Routledge; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Madge C. Developing a geographers’ agenda for online research ethics. Prog Hum Geogr. 2007;31(5):654–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mallon T. A book of one’s own: people and their diaries. New York: Ticknow & Fields; 1984.Google Scholar
  38. Marteya RM, Stromer-Galleyb J, Banksc J, Wud J, Consalvoe M. The strategic female: gender-switching and player behavior in online games. Inf Commun Soc. 2014;17(3):286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCormack M. Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. J Soc Pers Relat. 2014;31(4):475–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDermott E, Roen K. Youth on the ‘virtual’ edge: researching marginalized sexualities and genders online. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(4):560–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer IH, Wilson PA. Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(1):23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muise A. Women’s sex blogs: challenging dominant discourses of heterosexual desire. Fem Psychol. 2011;21(3):411–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray DM, Fisher JD. The Internet: a virtually untapped tool for research. J Technol Hum Serv. 2002;19(2–3):5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Nuenen T. Here I am: authenticity and self-branding on travel blogs. Tour Stud. 2016;16(2):192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paasonen S. Labors of love: Netporn, Web 2.0 and the meanings of amateurism. New Media Soc. 2010;12(8):1297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  47. Reid DJ, Reid FM. Online focus groups: an in-depth comparison of computer mediated and conventional focus group discussions. Int J Mark Res. 2005;47:131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roberts L. Opportunities and constraints of electronic research. In: Reynolds RA, Woods R, Baker JD, editors. Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurements. Hershey: Idea Group Reference; 2007. p. 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roller M, Lavrakas PJ. Applied qualitative research design: a total quality framework approach. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  50. Rosewarne L. Part-time perverts: sex, pop culture and kink management. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2011.Google Scholar
  51. Rosewarne L. American taboo: the forbidden words, unspoken rules, and secret morality of popular culture. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2013.Google Scholar
  52. Rosewarne L. Masturbation in pop culture: screen, society, self. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2014.Google Scholar
  53. Rosewarne L. School of shock: film, television and anal education. Sex Educ. 2015;15(4):553–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosewarne L. Intimacy on the internet: media representations of online connections. New York: Routledge; 2016a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosewarne L. Cyberbullies, cyberactivists, eyberpredators: film, TV, and Internet stereotypes. Santa Barbara: Praeger; 2016b.Google Scholar
  56. Rosewarne L. Cinema and cyberphobia: Internet clichés in film and television. Aust J Telecommun Digit Econ. 2016c;4(1):36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosewarne L. Choose your own (miss) adventure: single ladyhood in 2016. Meanjin. 2016d;75(3):32–40.Google Scholar
  58. Schrooten M. Moving ethnography online: researching Brazilian migrants’ online togetherness. Ethnic Racial Stud. 2012;35(1):1794–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sparrman A. Access and gatekeeping in researching children’s sexuality: mess in ethics and methods. Sex Cult. 2014;18:291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomas J. Getting off on sex research: a methodological commentary on the sexual desires of sex researchers. Sexualities. 2016;19(1):83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tiefer L. New perspectives in sexology: from rigor (mortis) to richness. J Sex Res. 1991;28(4):593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waclawski E. How I use it: Survey Monkey. Occup Med. 2012;62:477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wagner G, Bondil P, Dabees K, Dean J, Fourcroy J, Gingell C, Kingsberg S, Kothari P, Rubio-Aurioles E, Ugarte F, Navarrete RV. Ethical aspects of sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2004;2(1):163–8.Google Scholar
  64. Waynberg J. 1908–2008: a century of sexology and still no legitimacy? Theol Sex. 2009;18(1):1–3.Google Scholar
  65. White GE, Thomson AN. Anonymized focus groups as a research tool for health professionals. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:256–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitehead G. The evidence of things unseen: authenticity and fraud in the Christian mommy blogosphere. J Am Acad Relig. 2015;83(1):120–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wood EA. Consciousness-raising 2.0: sex blogging and the creation of a feminist sex commons. Fem Psychol. 2008;18(4):480–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu T. What ever happened to Google Books? The New Yorker, September 11. 2015. Accessed 10 June 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations