Internet research differs from research on internet users: some methodological insights into online travel research-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Internet research differs from research on internet users: some methodological insights into online travel research

Published:2009-04-10 Issue:1 Volume:64 Page:32-47
ISSN:1660-5373
Container-title:Tourism Review
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Lohmann Martin,Schmücker Dirk J.

Abstract

PurposeOnline data collection is gaining momentum throughout the market research business. At the same time internet users and their online information and booking behaviour are becoming more and more important for the travel and tourism industry. This paper aims to investigate this issue.Design/methodology/approachThe paper researches internet users' travel and information/booking behaviour through online surveys. However, this approach is prone to critical methodological limitations. One of the main issues in this respect is the question of proper definition of the universe and sampling procedures. The paper shows today's chances and limitations of sampling using list‐based e‐mail invitations and online access panels.FindingsResults indicate that sampling method and length of field time have a substantial influence on response rates. It can further be shown that results from online travel research differ from results obtained in face‐to‐face interviews even when focussing on the same target group.Research implicationsAs long as online research differs from research on internet users to such an extent, online surveys seem to be rather a good complement than a substitution for more traditional research methods.Originality/valueThe paper shows the limitations and chances of online travel research based on the unique comparison of data from a face‐to‐face and online access panel surveys.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference30 articles.

1. Althoff, S. (1997), “Quoten‐Auswahlverfahren: Warum nicht?”, in Gabler, S. and Hoffmeyer‐Zlotnik, J.H.P. (Eds), Stichproben in der Umfragepraxis, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 19‐32.

2. Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt‐ und Sozialforschungsinsitute eV (n.d.)), available at: www.adm‐ev.de (accessed 29 April 2008).

3. Berinsky, A.J. (2008), “Survey non‐response”, in Donsbach, W. and Traugott, M.W. (Eds), Public Opinion Research, Sage, London, pp. 309‐21.

4. De Leeuw, E. and de Heer, W. (2002), “Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison”, in Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L. and Little, R.J.A. (Eds), Survey Nonresponse, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 41‐54.

5. Dillmann, D.A. (2008), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The antecedents of repurchase intention at user online travel agents in Indonesia mediated by brand image;International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478);2022-12-25

2. A darker side of business travel? Negative Folgen für den Geschäftsreisenden;Zeitschrift für Tourismuswissenschaft;2020-11-01

3. Qualitative online research in tourism – a systematic review of the literature;Tourism Review;2019-12-19

4. Bridging the void: science communication videos for sustainable whale watching;International Journal of Science Education, Part B;2019-10-02

5. Ethical Considerations in Quantitative Tourism and Hospitality Researches;Quantitative Tourism Research in Asia;2018-12-15