Week 4 prompt: means
15April 23, 2014 by jfenn@uoregon.edu
How to do ethnography (Photo credit: sladner2)
Our topic for this week is “means: how does digital ethnography happen?” Initially, I understood this question to push us toward considering how people—specific individuals and researchers—mobilize technologies, tools, or digital methods in order to conduct ethnography. While this week’s readings may not directly distinguish between the “who” and the “how,” I suggest that we look for such distinctions in our engagement with the articles as well as any other examples, bits from the Diigo list, or intriguing examples passing in front of us. Considerations of our own research are important here…
Category discussion prompt, Spr2014 | Tags: discussion, people
I think how to conduct digital ethnography is determined by what we want to know. In other words, it is determined by our research objects and objectives. Conducting an ethnographic research on gaming culture of MMORPGs such as Everquest or World of Warcraft might not fit in well with the network ethnography. Network ethnography tries to look at both the macro-level structure and the micro-level cultural relationships among members of community or organization. However, it seems to me that the method is not applicable when the research object is associated with more or less amorphous groups of people (or gamers); a group without networks. It is even hard to describe a group of gamers as a community although they share certain social rules. Generally, they don’t have (or need) overt purpose or shared values for online gaming. In this situation, I believe that gaming culture can only be studied from the bottom up.
Howard (2002:552) opens his article with the claim that “wired communities and organization are structured in such a way as to make rigorous qualitative investigation difficult..” He goes on to state that more rigorous methodologies should be considered in order to create generalizable qualitative data and transportable theory. How valid is it to argue that ethnographic data should or can be generalizable to larger populations?
As you all may have noticed so far, I don’t agree with the premise that there are “reduced” social cues when communications take place through computer-mediated channels. Rather, I would argue that the social cues are merely different. Howard asserts that social cues are indeed reduced when done digitally. I think this assumes the a full range of social cues are always present and implemented in face to face communications. However, depending on the nature of the communications, the power dynamics between communicators, and the environment in which the communications take place, there may be reduced social cues in physical locations for a multitude of reasons. Considering this argument, is it valid to state that social cues are inherently reduced in digital interactions?
Lastly, Wendy Roth’s (2012) book, Race Migrations: Latinos and the Cultural Transformation of Race, examines how racial schemas are transnationally diffused, in part, through what she terms “social remittances.” These remittances are interpersonal exchanges of cultural meaning by migrants and non-migrants, back and forth, between their countries of origin and the Untied States. Roth’s observations of this phenomenon were not oriented toward the digitally mediated interactions of her respondents. Rather, she took note of how in-person and phone conversation between her participants enabled individuals to share social remittances. In thinking about how online culture affects offline social life (Boellstorff’s example of how notions of being “gay,” for people in Indonesia, are informed by globalizing conceptions of homosexuality illustrates this point) I wonder how new media and the Internet might affect such cultural exchanges. More to the point of the prompt, how might a researcher study choose which digital exchanges to study and how might one get access to it?
Dicks, et. al. pose an intriguing answer to the question, “how does ethnography happen?” I found this article particularly enlightening considering the authors ground their answer(s) in semiotics. Noting a difference between media and modes, Dicks, et. al. find ethnography in those spaces and places where human beings and their virtual counterparts interact and engage with one another through both traditional and online forms of communication.
The authors’ statement, “in order to understand the meaning of any environment, we need to understand how its various semiotic modes and media work together to produce a particular ensemble of meaning-effects [which need to be presented as representable forms]” (p. 84) indicates a push toward richer, “multimodal” forms of ethnography. In my mind, this statement equates to the notion that meanings are found by and through the happenings or doings of real-world and cyber-individuals, with “new media” environments (potentially) altering the ways in which these “actions” or experiences take place.
While I largely agreed with the premise of this piece and appreciated how the authors used visual and textual examples from the science center where their research was conducted, I am not sure I am convinced by the proposition that “recording technologies” are impermanent (or generate impermanent representations?) thus reducing the range of media and modes [than those occurring in the field] (p. 84). However, in virtual and real-world outlets, ethnography “happens” continually [I like the term “multi-semiotically” (p. 84)] in acts and locations that certainly persist beyond mere data analysis. In line with Dicks, et. al., individuals embody various personas through a host of channels while also creating/shaping their attitudes, values, beliefs, ideas, etc. through different communicative forms. In my mind, this raises another question: as ethnographers, at what point should we “turn off” or “stop” the recording process? In other words, do all “data” become relevant because of the existence of digital technologies?
Schum provides “Ethical Electronic Research Guidelines” to guide us in conducting research online (120). Fundamentally, these guidelines assume we strive to be “ethical, honest, and inclusive” (120). Although I do not necessarily disagree with this basic outline, it does raise more questions for me. First, how are we to be sure we are being inclusive when considering online communities? There are many variables associated with online communities, thus how can we track all of them at one time and be aware of them? Further, is it fair to suggest online community relationships only exist online? Can online relationships be affected by offline interaction, should these be identified?
The Boellstorff article also raises some questions for me as he states “culture in virtual worlds shares features with offline cultures” (4). I find this especially compelling considering the discipline I am grounded in (landscape architecture & planning). There is an excess of design literature and examples of academics and professionals struggling with how to make or plan for spaces that react or engage culture. Should or could, offline and online culture combine together in one central location or site? Is it possible for each of them to somehow relate and continually inform the other?
Digital spaces offer new challenges (or maybe really just different) when it comes to research. One of those issues is that the internet offers one large open space. Privacy concerns are not usually considered as so much is considered to be public. I think Shrum brings about an important issue: “Protection of the subjects verses freedoms to conduct research and to publish research findings.” I think this is an important issue to consider. What limitations are put on ethnography in this environment. Important issues to consider include who owns the materials/group being studied, what are the responsibilities of the researcher within a given environment, what are the rights of the individual and can existing rules for ethnographic research be applied within the digital realm.
Right now, with my research, I am kind of dealing with a reverse of these issues. I am looking at the changing role of the reporter/photographer as it applies to technology. The ethnographic work is being done in a standard observation/interview format, but the information I hope to gather is how these reporters and photographers are working in this digital space (or if they are). How do the Twitter universe and Facebook effect how they do their jobs? How much time is being spent working in these spaces? How are reporters using different internet spaces to supplement the work they are doing? Is a workspace different online vs. offline, when the end goal is the same? I think there is a lot to be answered as far as how people mobilize technologies, tools and digital methods. I think it is interesting to consider the different approaches people are using to online research and compare that back to the ways in which methods vary (or I suspect are actually very similar). From reading one method section to another, typically they are just forumalic to the method. There isn’t anything significant that stands out and one method section can be substituted for another, with a few variables. I am not sure how that pattern transfers to digital ethnography, but presumably it is the same.
I would like to respond to some of the guidelines set out in the Schrum article:
2. Researchers should consider the respondents and participants as owners of the materials that are created; the respondents should have the ability to modify or correct statements for meaning, spelling, or language.
–>>Nothing is as clear cut as this. When dealing with work that has been posted online, you’re already dealing with edited material. That is, the poster have had time to think about what they are posting–as opposed to getting that automatic reaction in a face-to-face interview. Thusly, they have already had time to go back and edit/respond back to it.
–>>Secondly, when taking a transcript from a face-to-face interview and putting it in a work, the researcher has the ability to “clean it up”–take out the “ughs” and repeated words. Why shouldn’t this practice be applied to online works by fixing the spelling &ct.?
3. Researchers need to describe in detail the goals of the research, purposes to which the results will be put, plans of the researcher to protect participants, and recourse open to those who feel mistreated.
–>>Again, if this doesn’t have to happen in face-to-face research (because people don’t ask for the exact details) why is it mandatory that it happen online?
5. Researchers should negotiate their entry into an electronic community, beginning with the owner of the discussion, if one exists. After gaining that entry, they should make their presence known in any electronic community…
–>>I watch the discussion on several pagan discussion forums. To gain entry to those, because they were closed groups, I had to get permission from the elders in the group. Once I had that, I saw no reason to announce that I was there. Now, because it is a closed group, if I ever wanted to use what someone was saying in a work, I would feel obligated to ask their permission.
–>>I also feel like you can ask for an introduction. In one particular instance, I was “introduced” to the group as a “a folklore student that works with pagans” by the moderator of the group. And that went over very well. They know I’m there but having the moderator introduce me gave me some credibility.
Network ethnography or sometimes labeled as virtual ethnography Howard notes can be a method to find rich sociological stories within media networks and on-line communities. I find this very useful as I’ve read through some of the articles posted on Diigo related to my research and communities that find collective means to share culture and connect with others to do such things as create social change and promote activism.
I have observed how some hip hop artists from the community of City of God in Rio de Janeiro have reached out to their fans and built a culture of awareness and positive outreach from a bottom up approach. I’ve been able to connect with a couple of artists via Facebook who promote women’s empowerment through music and dance. This forum has provided a great way for me to study their interactions with their fan-base and also allow for me to dialogue directly with them and set up future interviews and volunteer work for my fieldwork this summer. Because they are used to using their FB page, I feel comfortable connecting with them via this method. I would however, like to extend that to set up some face time via a Skype interview. I would like to explore more qualitative techniques to study digital ethnography and observe more of in my case how artists use their music and culture to connect on a more personal level with their fans and communities.
Among all the readings, Howard’s discussions on the new methodology “network ethnography” and how this new technique can be used to study the new organizational format “hypermedia organizations” inspire me most. Howard’s efforts of bridging between macro-level ethnographic study and macro-level network analysis is valuable. Yet, it again makes us rethink the question – can this theoretical and methodological dilemma (the incompatible relations between ethnography and so-called positive scientist approaches like network analysis) be solved by developing a new synthesized technique (i.e. network ethnography)?
To me, Howard’s criticisms of both weakness of ethnography and network analysis are valid from the research technique perspective. However, he has not given enough discussions on what exactly the research objectives of these two approaches, which are completely different to me. The network analysis tends to produce researches that are used to craft sampling approach, target studying subjectives, test existed theories. Network analysis can be replicated by other researchers applied for prediction for most of the time. These objectives will make network analysts carefully select their sample and attempt to make their sample becomes more representative through consciously crafting their sampling methods. Although Howard touches upon most of these features of network analysis in his article, he missed a very important feature that differentiates network analysis from ethnography – that is, the researcher should be detached from his studying objective. On the contrary, ethnographic studies should be aimed at interpreting cultural phenomenon, unpacking power dynamic and mechanisms, and producing or reconstructing theories. These objectives determine the intervention/participation of the researchers in the culture. The different roles of researcher and different studying objectives make me worry about whether these two types of study can actually bridged by the application of network analysis.
However, I have to admit that the researching subject that Howard choose – the network of political campaign consultant (a hypermedia organization as Howard called) – formalizes a type of researching subject that most likely can be studied by network ethnography. Maybe this point gets back to the issue “who are we studying”. The emergence of hypermedia organization challenges lots of theoretical assumptions that produced by organizational studies. Hypermedia organization extends the interactions beyond the physical space and power relationship beyond employment relations. For Howard, this new organization format opens a opportunities for new research methods. For me, this new organization opens important theoretical gaps. Since my specialized researching area concentrated on organizational analysis, Howard discussions make me realize that many assumptions that organizational analysis made (e.g. cultural / normative control) in fact are not able to explain the new hypermedia organizations. However, my questions remain exist. Can network ethnography be the appropriate methodology to address these theoretical gaps?
Recently, my research “crush” has been on this online organization called “XXXChurch” (http://www.xxxchurch.com/) This community dedicates themselves to helping individuals through pornography and/or sex/masturbation addiction. I arrived at them through a confessionals project I was working on, and have been exploring their site ever since (http://www.x3confessions.com/men/confessions.html).
The question of how and who is challenging for me as I work to develop my research questions and methodology. How much do I really need to know about who these people are? And does who they are influence how I should collect my data? And how does who I am, as a researcher, digital citizen, etc. influence how I do what I do?
The particular challenge in this example is not how they are presenting sexuality (as a former sex educator, I feel confident deconstructing these themes). I do, however, have little experience working with religious organizations. Can I look at these spaces as digital texts, and ignore who is writing what? How does their religious affiliation change the message from any other sex-based website?
These challenges are not unique to digital ethnography. We all need to grapple with when and where to out ourselves as researchers, and if and when that’s appropriate. We can sit in a coffee shop as long as we want (just like I can cruise this website as long as I want), but sooner or later I might want to know about who I’m observing. I think once you’re reading to cross that boundary, it directly impacts your how.
As I read the Howard article, I couldn’t help but conceptualize digital ethnography as an organic process. In contrast to traditional approaches of social research, “virtual ethnography” is more networked and responsive to shifts in media and the people that engage with it. I really enjoyed how the author visualized new media as a structure that was “literally over and above traditional media in a network of satellites, relay stations and databases…” (Howard, p.552). This description creates an image in my mind that speaks to my perception of emerging technologies in that their use blankets and feeds off of previous resources of communication. Howard suggests that as new forms of organizational culture appear, “researchers must adapt their methods in order to best capture evidence” (p.553). This is where digital ethnography takes root – in the reaction to a contorting existence of shared knowledge and redefined communities. He also brings up the notion of “decentralization” and argues that digital ethnography can be used to overcome the challenge of studying a displaced community that still maintains a rich, yet elusive network of relationships. Researchers that openly embrace the use of technology and still manage to maintain a critical mindset are in a good position to discover new and significant content that may not have been realized without a digital means of inquiry. Another reason I think of digital ethnography as an organic/evolutionary process is embodied in Howard’s statement on page 561; he suggests, “the meaning of ‘field sites’ is adapted, and instead of choosing territorial field sites, the researcher has to choose a perceived community and select the important nodes in the social network as field sites”. This approach requires an individual to accommodate his/her way of thinking so that as a researcher, he/she can mobilize technologies to better serve the research design.
In thinking about the question, “How does digital ethnography happen?”, I think the readings for the week indicate that there is no clear answer. Boellstorff, Howard, and Schrum all discuss how existing methodological approaches – along with their assumptions about epistemology and the value of produced knowledge – come to bear upon questions of digital research. The world of digital ethnography, or any form of research involving digital spaces, is not encountered from a methodological viewpoint devoid of history or institutional and disciplinary norms. One of the most exciting things about the possibilities of digital research is that perhaps the networks and relationships made possible in digital spaces – though not free or separate from power relations at work in other non-digital spaces – can lead to different forms of knowledge production. How can we use digital tools to shift dominant perceptions about the value of different processes of knowledge production?
Throughout this course, I’m having some trouble tracking the different issues of conducting ethnography using digital tools (or according to Boerstorff in 2002, even using phone interviews) and applying ethnographic methods and tools to online groups. Our discussion and the readings seem to be moving fluidly between both tracks.
Through the Howard article I kept thinking, as Younsong put it, that how research happens depends on “what we want to know.” Both what we decide is the bounding edge of the group we’re studying, and the angle of our research.
Without having read Castronova’s publication, I thought that Boellstorf’s critique of Castronova was unreasonable in light of one key point: Castronova is an economist. Of course it would be crazy to use such a “tone” to present online games as full cultural models–but again, Castronova is an economist, and it does seem reasonable that from his perspective immersive online games like Second Life can serve as microcosms of human relationships and interactions within a newly established economy.
Like David, I was struck by Howard’s notion that “we need to develop more rigorous methods in order to obtain a generalizable qualitative data and transportable theory in the study of new media and society (2005: 552). The assumption that it is desirable to be able to describe all people, everywhere with one type of theory gives me pause, but I also think that might be just one step towards creating more specific theories for specific groups and subgroups. That isn’t to say that I think it’s necessarily possible to have a unifying theory of everything or that it’s necessarily a good thing, but sometimes we can only arrive at our differences by seeing how badly such a theory fits a situation or group.
As I discussed in class, I would like to address the applicability of ethics in online research. Schrum, while coming into the issue of ethics in online research rather early on, proposes that the researcher introduce their presence to the online community continuously, or as seems efficient. Others have also suggested this declaration of the presence of the researcher, but the issue here is the constant variation of online interactions. One might introduce their presence as a researcher to the community, but unless the researcher is entering into the community at its initiation, they are still not attending to the privacy rights of a good portion of the community. What I mean about this, is that individuals will post something to an online community and forget about it within the week of originally posting. So the researcher would have to ignore posts made prior to their introduction in order to adhere to this seemingly arbitrary ethical rule.
An issue that I foresee arising in the future is the increasing traceability of posts. As our emails, Facebook accounts, YouTube accounts, etc. are linked up together, our comments are no longer “anonymous” screen names. Even accounts with anonymous screen names, such as “scubadiver12”, may have identifying information attached to it.
Howard talked some about the importance of the offline life reflecting online life, and that somehow there had to be an offline life connected to online in order for the work to be relevant. I think that there must be some way for the online self to represent itself alone.
As has been noted by a few individuals so far, the answer to “how digital ethnography happen?” is difficult because it must be approached using multiple perspectives in order to hold research to be as inclusive as possible, while also being as focused on your constituents as possible. The readings this week provided a wide range of ideas as to how this process might look, and more importantly, that there also might not be a single correct answer. Relating this idea to the Boellstorff’s definition of culture, digital ethnography is research focusing on the dynamics of communication and action among people/cultures/identities/realms of individuals with similar ideologies and interests, yet they might all experience the interactions differently, for different reasons, and have different processes of coping with other people’s styles.
Boellstorff defines culture as “… a tool for fulfilling needs, as a ‘structuralist’ grammar of concepts shaping cognition… culture is not simply the aggregate of individual personalities and dispositions. … Culture is not just what people do; it is also what they claim it is they do, what they believe, and the patterned yet contingent ways that social action is constituted in the context of such narrative and belief.” These concepts can also be applied to the thought process of a digital ethnographer and their approach to field research?
Why are people in such mass population drawn to MMO RPG games? What are the areas of focus for people when in the gaming context? How would/should/could researchers approach these populations wanting to research these gamers without altering the normalcy of interactions had throughout the game?
These types of questions can also be applied to my field of research involving athletics and brands existing in the digital realm. Why do certain athletes engage with fans more often social media outlets than others? What sorts of training do these athletes receive in order to become fully aware of scope and impact their communication choices carry? Why do certain brands choose to stay ‘professional’ on digital interfaces (think of things like speaking in the third person, very robotic answers, etc), and why do other brands differentiate themselves by choosing to communicate as if the brand has its own personality? What are the implications here, and how does research aid in influencing brands to think otherwise about their methods?