I have a background in the traditional sciences, biology namely, and it has been ingrained in my head from the first days of learning proper methodology and healthy skepticism is that observation changes the behavior/outcome of that which is observed. The researcher's interaction with the subject, animate or inanimate, has an effect on the results observed.
Research was known to me as a very clinical and hands-off process. The last thing you ever wanted to do was effect the results either through carelessness, bias, or just poor methodology. Distance was to give perspective to the research process. It also made research a very dry and unexciting prospect.
Then I came across the idea of participant observation through a blog post on PSFK about from the KSU Anthropology Department, best known for his Machine is Using Us video. He states that the only way to really understand a cultural phenomenon is to participate in it yourself:
I have to agree with him on this even though it goes against much of traditional research technique. For one thing, part of the whole point of having a social media presence is to be observed and to be noticed, therefore a researcher's public observation of a subject would be of minimal consequence to the outcome.
There is another part to researching online behavior that I think is essential. You cannot possibly know what is going on out there unless you experience it for yourself, and even then, as Jenka will firmly attest, your experience (assuming your are 25+ years of age) will be far different than that of a thirteen year old. Know that going in. All of those "gifts" and application invitations on Facebook that you may see as nothing but spam and inbox clutter are means of social commerce and standing to a teenager.
You can't expect to poke around a social network for five minutes and walk away with a full understanding of how it works. You have to make a real commitment to digging in . You have to get your hands dirty.