Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability are important matters when evaluating the quality of the research.

Validity is referring to how good the researcher measures what intendeds to be measured.

How strong the validity is will say something about the integrity of the conclusions.

Reliability refers to how trustable the results are, in other words, if someone else were to obtain the same results by following the same path (Gripsrud, Olsson and Silkoset 2004).

In order to ensure validity and reliability, the chosen theories and data have throughout the paper been evaluated and considered as for whether or not they are relevant for the research question. The selected case is also carefully chosen, and as this is a single case study the case selection is essential. The research question has been in mind when looking at the content, meaning that the focus has been upon what Danske Bank is doing.

When researching Danske Bank’s Facebook page, the content was examined two times in detail. This was done in order to make sure that nothing was missed out, and that the interpretation of the content was the same when repeated. As content on Facebook is dynamic, an outline of a narrative was made after the first examination. The initial

assessment of Danske Bank’s Facebook page was done in the same day, in order to ensure as little changes as possible. Also, both the researchers were present during the data gathering, to ensure that no content were missed out, and to make sure that both authors had the same understanding.

The nature of the narrative is also made so that if content is deleted or changed, it would not necessarily affect the narrative, as the overall picture is most likely to stay the same.

Weaknesses of the data collection

First of all, past content might be changed or modified by either administrators of the Danske Bank page, or followers. However, the followers of the Danske Bank’s Facebook page can only edit content uploaded by themselves. Because of this, it could have been beneficial to print the content of Danske Bank’s Facebook page in hard copies. However, when the

authors attempted to do so, it became clear that this would have been such a page amount that it was decided not to do it. This decision might have weakened the research reliability.

Even though most data were collected the same day, the authors have looked at the page more than one time, and therefore some content might have changed from time to time.

Secondly, the page is changing and developing in high speed. For example, fans come to the page, while other might leave the page. In the beginning, Danske Bank had also written a lot of company information, but some months later, this information was kept to a minimum.

Due to the highly interactive content, some extra challenges are therefore present when doing research in social media rooms.

Another drawback with the applied methods is the single case design. By just examining one case, the results will most likely not be able to say anything about what financial institutions are doing on Facebook. Even though the chosen case is argued to be a good case choice, examining more than one case could have strengthened the validity of the research.

Ethical considerations

Facebook is protected with passwords, which raises issues on doing research in such a forum.

However, both the authors have a personal Facebook account, giving access to the webpage.

Secondly, acceptance from a page administrator is not necessary in order to view the content on Danske Bank’s Facebook page. Finally, every Facebook member has agreed to

Facebook’s terms of use, which states that all information that is uploaded on “pages” such as the one Danske Bank operates, is public knowledge, and thus available for everyone

(⁴Facebook, 2011). According to Kozinets (2010), analyzing an online community is not considered human subjects research if the researcher can legally and easily gain access to these communications (Kozinets, 2010). For the sake of this page on Facebook, the content is visible to everyone. Because of this, this research is not considered to breach any unethical line.

Methodological delimitations

In order to have a focused approach to the research question, some delimitations must be made. First of all, the official page of Danske Bank at Facebook will be looked at, namely the one called “Danske Bank”. Danske Bank is also administrator of two other pages on

Facebook. These are called “Danske Bank literary award” and “Mind your money”, whereas

the latter is aiming to give simple and general financial tips to the younger set. However, these two pages will not be looked into as they are smaller in terms of number of people liking the page, and because the main page is more interesting due to the content amount.

Other hits that appear when searching “Danske Bank” at Facebook will not be looked into, as mainly third party users administrate these.

The next limitation made is the focus on the medium Facebook. Danske Bank is also present in other social media channels, such as Twitter and YouTube, but Facebook is the medium with most support and followers. As a comparison, their Twitter account has 479 followers, whereas their Facebook page has 6933 likes/ followers (June 12^th 2011). Also, the focus on one medium only allows for a more in depth investigation of the usage.

A final point to be made is that this paper will focus on Danske Bank’s Danish Facebook page. Danske Bank is present in several countries, but the Facebook page to be looked at is directed against the Danish market and the Danish customers. The reason for this is that looking at Facebook pages administered by Danske Bank in other countries, would have led to too much content. Language barriers could also been an issue if examining Facebook pages from other countries.