Online ethnography

Wikipedia dec 23, 2014

Watch this page

Online ethnography (or netnography) refers to a number of related online research
methods that adapt ethnographic methods to the study of the communities and cultures created
through computer-mediated social interaction. As modifications of the term ethnography,
online ethnography and virtual ethnography (as well as many other methodological
neologisms) designate online fieldwork that follows from the conception of ethnography as an
adaptable method. These methods tend to leave most of the specifics of the adaptation to the
individual researcher. Netnography suggests the use of specific procedures and standards, and
argues for consideration of particular consensually-agreed upon techniques, justifying the use
of a new name rather than a modification of the term ethnography.[1][2]
Contents

Introduction
The range of methodologies
o Netnography
Netnographic methodology
Gaining entry to online communities and cultures
Data collection
Data analysis
Research ethics
Advantages and limitations of Netnography
Ethics
Advantages and limitations of ethnographic research in online cultures and communities
See also
References
Further reading
External links

IntroductionEdit
All ethnographies of online cultures and communities extend the traditional notions of field
and ethnographic study, as well as ethnographic cultural analysis and representation, from the
observation of co-located, face-to-face interactions to technologically mediated interactions in
online networks and communities, and the culture (or cyberculture) shared between and
among them. In doing so, these techniques are founded in the sense that traditional notions of
a field site as a localized space are outdated. They suggest that ethnographic fieldwork can be
meaningfully applied to computer-mediated interactions, an assertion that some have
contested,[3] but which is increasingly becoming accepted.[4][5]
Almost since their inception, ethnographies of online cultures and communities have been
conducted that are purely observational, in which the researcher is a specialized type
of lurker[6] or non participant observation in online communities.[7] However, other
researchers have emphasized a more participative approach, in which the researcher fully
participates as a member of the online community. This latter approach is closer to traditional
ethnographic standards of participant observation, prolonged engagement, and deep
immersion. In many of its renderings, netnography, online ethnography, or virtual
ethnography should maintain the values of traditional ethnography through providing
a Geertzian sense of "thick description" (1973 [8]) through the immersion" of the researcher in
the life of the online culture or community (Hine 2000,[9] Markham 1998 [10]). This focus on
participation and immersion makes these approaches quite distinct from Web usage

mining or social network analysis, although ethnographers may use similar techniques to
identify or map networks.
The key question for the researcher is "how can ethnography be pursued in computermediated social settings"? Researchers have attempted to create computer-mediated
counterparts for many of the basic ethnographic concepts but whether they can appropriately
be applied to technologically mediated interaction is still open (Howard, 2003). For example,
if a researcher simply reads some emails or participates in chat rooms, does this represent
an ethnography? The key is participation. Can the researcher still be said to have immersed
themselves in the life of the community and to have engaged in the culture as a full-fledged
member? There is debate in the online research community to what extent participation is
required, with completely observational articles published as a type of ethnography of online
cultures.

The range of methodologiesEdit

There are a range of different ways that ethnographers have attempted to study the internet.
The methodological approach of virtual ethnography has been broadened and reformulated
through a variety of other terms. Most of these terms and the techniques they represent seek to
maintain their own dialogue with the established tradition of ethnography. Each formulates its
relation to the established anthropological tradition in different (and sometimes inconsistent)
ways. There are those who consider that ethnographies conducted online involves a distinctive
methodological approach. There are also those who consider that researching the Internet
ethnographically forces us to reflect on fundamental assumptions and concepts of
ethnography, but that it doesn't mean a distinctive form of ethnography.[11]

Netnography
The term netnography has gained currency within the field of consumer research to refer to
ethnographic research conducted on the Internet. It is a qualitative, interpretive research
methodology that adapts the traditional, in-person ethnographic research techniques of
anthropology to the study of the online cultures and communities formed through computermediated communications (CMC).
At least four aspects of online, computer-mediated, or virtual, interaction and community
formation are distinct from their in-person, real life (RL), or face-to-face (F2F)
counterparts. First is the textual, nonphysical, and social-cue-impoverished context of the
online environment. Second is an unprecedented new level of access to the heretofore
unobservable behaviors of particular interacting peoples. Third, while traditional interactions
are ephemeral as they occur, online social interactions are often automatically saved and
archived, creating permanent records. Finally, the social nature of the new medium is unclear
as to whether it is a private or public space, or some unique hybrid. Ethnography adapts
common participant-observation ethnographic proceduressuch as making cultural entre,
data collection, analyzing data, and conducting ethical researchto these computer-mediated
contingencies and provides sets of specific guidelines (see Kozinets 2002 for a detailed
development of the process; see also Kozinets 2006).
Netnographic methodology
There are a range of methodological prescriptions involved in conducts a netnography. This
entry will provide an overview of them, but interested researchers should consult other
methodological texts for details (e.g., Kozinets 1998, 2002, 2006a). However explicit ethical
codes are essential to improve public trust and understanding of online privacy in netnography
research. Creating social media guideline such as NPR News Social Media Guidelines,
2009 [12] highlights privacy in ethical code and enhance the importance of confidentiality in
ethical research.

Gaining entry to online communities and cultures

Given the wide range of choices of online communal forms, including blogs, web-rings, chat,
SMS, gamespaces, bulletin boards, and mailing lists, researchers should spend the time to
match their research questions and interests to appropriate online forum, using the novel
resources of online search engines such as Yahoo! and Google groups, before initiating
entre. Before initiating contact as a participant, or beginning formal data collection, the
distinctive characteristics of the online communities should be familiar to the netnographer. In
netnographic entree, following ethical standards such as full and accurate disclosure of the
presence of the researcher is critical (Kozinets 2002).
Data collection

In a netnography, data takes two forms: data that the researcher directly copies from the
computer-mediated communications of online community members, and data that the
researcher inscribes. Reflective fieldnotes, in which ethnographers record their observations,
are a time-tested and recommended method in netnography. Although some netnographies
have been conducted using only observation and download, without the researcher writing a
single fieldnote, this non-participant approach draws into question the ethnographic
orientation of the investigation.
As with grounded theory, data collection should continue as long as new insights are being
generated. For purposes of precision, some netnographers closely track the amount of text
collected and read, and the number of distinct participants. CAQDASsoftware solutions can
expedite coding, content analysis, data linking, data display, and theory-building functions.
New forms of qualitative data analysis are constantly being developed by a variety of firms
(such as MotiveQuest and Neilsen BuzzMetrics), although the results of these firms are more
like content analyses of than ethnographic representations (Kozinets 2006). However, some
scholars dispute netnography's distance from content analysis, preferring to assert that it is
also a content analytic technique (Langer and Beckman 2005).
Data analysis

Distinct from data mining and content analysis, netnography as a method emphasizes the
cultural contextualizing of online data. This often proves to be challenging in the social-cuesimpoverished online context. Because netnography is based primarily upon the observation of
textual discourse, ensuring trustworthy interpretations requires a different approach than the
balancing of discourse and observed behavior that occurs during in-person ethnography.
Although the online landscape mediates social representation and renders problematic the
issue of informant identity, netnography seems perfectly amenable to treating behavior or the
social act as the ultimate unit of analysis, rather than the individual person.
Research ethics

Research ethics may be one of the most important differences between traditional
ethnography and netnography. Ethical concerns over netnography turn on early concerns
about whether online forums are to be considered a private or a public site, and about what
constitutes informed consent in cyberspace (see Paccagnella 1997). In a major departure from
traditional methods, netnography uses cultural information that is not given specifically, and
in confidence, to the researcher. The consumers who originally created the data do not
necessarily intend or welcome its use in research representations. Netnography therefore
offers specific guidelines regarding when to cite online posters and authors, how to cite them,
what to consider in an ethical netnographic representation, when to ask permission, and when
permission is not necessary (Kozinets 2002).

Advantages and limitations of Netnography

Compared to surveys, experiments, focus groups, and personal interviews, netnography can
be less obtrusive. It is conducted using observations in a context that is not fabricated by the
researcher. Netnography also is less costly and timelier than focus groups and personal
interviews.
The limitations of netnography draw from its more narrow focus on online communities, its
inability to offer the full and rich detail of lived human experience, the need for researcher
interpretive skill, and the lack of informant identifiers present in the online context that leads
to difficulty generalizing results to groups outside the online community sample. However,
these limitations can be ameliorated somewhat by careful use of convergent data collection
methods that bridge offline and online research in a systematic manner (Kozinets 1998, 2002).
Researchers wishing to generalize the findings of a netnography of a particular online group
to other groups must apply careful evaluations of similarity and consider using multiple
methods for research triangulation.[13]Netnography is still a relatively new method, and awaits
further development and refinement at the hands of a new generation of Internet-savvy
ethnographic researchers. However, several researchers are developing the techniques in
social networking sites, virtual worlds, mobile communities, and other novel computermediated social domains.

EthicsEdit
To the extent that online ethnography is similar to ethnography in a localized space, it will
raise similar ethical considerations. However, the nature of the online space does raise new
ethical issues, including those related to informed consent of human subjects, protections of
privacy or anonymity of research subjects, and whether online ethnography might be a form
of electronic eavesdropping.[14] In spite of these differences, the American Anthropological
Association has yet to include any specific recommendations regarding online ethnography in
its Code of Ethics.[15]

Advantages and limitations of ethnographic research in

online cultures and communitiesEdit
The advantage of online ethnography is seeing the Internet as a means of practicing and
upholding a culture. When online, members of a culture to "attempt to make themselves a(t)
home in a transforming communicative environment" and "find themselves in this
environment and at the same time mould it in their own image."[16] In their work on the online
Trinidadian community, anthropologists Daniel Miller and Don Slater note that
"Trinidadians--particularly those living away--invest much energy in trying to make online
life as Trinidadian as they can make it, to see the Internet as a place to perform Trininess." [17]

See alsoEdit

Online Community
Anthropology of cyberspace
Online research community
Networks of practice
Social networks
Virtual community of practice
Netnography

ReferencesEdit
1. Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing
Research in Online Communities,Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 61-72.
2. Del Fresno, Miguel (2011) Netnografa. Investigacin, anlisis e intervencin social. Editorial
UOC, 1 edicin, Barcelona, Espaa
3. Clifford, J. (1997). Spatial Practices: Fieldwork, Travel, and the Discipline of Anthropology.
In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.) Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a
Field Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 185-222.
4. Bishop, J. (2008). Increasing capital revenue in social networking communities: Building
social and economic relationships through avatars and characters. In C. Romm-Livermore, &
K. Setzekorn (Eds.), Social networking communities and eDating services: Concepts and
implications. New York: IGI Global. Available online
5. Garcia, Angela Cora, Alecea I. Standlee, Jennifer Bechkoff, and Yan Cui (2009),
Ethnographic Approaches to the Internet and Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography, 38 (1), February, 52-84.
6. Kozinets, Robert V. (2006a), Netnography 2.0, in Handbook of Qualitative Research
Methods in Marketing, ed. Russell W. Belk, Cheltenham, UN and Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, 129-142.
7. Del Fresno, Miguel (2011) Netnografa. Investigacin, anlisis e intervencin social. Editorial
UOC, 1 edicin, Barcelona, Espaa
8. Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
9. Hine, Christine (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
10. Markham, Anette (1998). Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space.
AltaMira Press.
11. Domnguez, Daniel, Anne Beaulieu, Adolfo Estalella, Edgar Gmez, Bernt Schnettlerand
Rosie Read. (2007). "Virtual Ethnography." Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 8(3).
12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2010.512827
13. Clark. L, Ting. I.-H, Kimble. C, Wright. P and Kudenko, D.
14. Wilson, Samuel M.; Peterson, Leighton C. (2002). "The Anthropology of Online
Communities". Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 449467.
15. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/2009-AAA-Ethics-Code.pdf
16. Miller, Daniel and Slater, Don. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Berg Publishers,
2001, p. 1.
17. Miller, Daniel and Slater, Don. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Berg Publishers,
2001, p. 7.

Further readingEdit

Jupp, Victor. (2006b), Netnography, The Sage Dictionary of Social Research, ed. Victor
Jupp, London: Sage, 193-195.
Kozinets, R. (1999), "E-Tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implications of Virtual
Communities of Consumption," European Management Journal, 17 (3), 252-264.
__________. (1997) I Want To Believe: A Netnography of The X-Philes Subculture of
Consumption, Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 24, ed., Merrie Brucks and
Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 470-475.
Alzola Romero, Aarn "/WHOIS? Identity: Collectivity and the Self in IRC," Psychnology
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, 87-130.

Clark, Lillian I-Hsien Ting, Chris Kimble, Peter Wright and Daniel Kudenko. "Combining
ethnographic and clickstream data to identify user Web browsing strategies," Information
Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, January 2006
Chrichton, Susan and Shelly Kinash. "Virtual Ethnography: Interactive Interviewing Online
as Method," Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Volume 29(2) Spring, 2003.
Dicks, Bella; Mason, Bruce; Coffey, Amanda; Atkinson, Paul (2005), Qualitative Research
and Hypermedia: Ethnography for the Digital Age, London: Sage Publications, ISBN 0-76196098-8
__________. 1998. "Virtual Ethnography," Internet Research for Information and Social
Scientists (IRISS) conference.
Giesler, Markus. 2008. "Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace
Evolution," Journal of Consumer Research. 34 (April): electronically published August 27,
2007.
__________. 2006. "'Consumer Gift Systems:' Netnographic Insights from Napster." Journal
of Consumer Research. 33 (September): 283-90.
Greive, Gregory. (1995) Imagining a Virtual Religious Community: Neo-pagans on The
Internet, Chicago Anthropology Exchange 7 (Winter): 98-132.
Mann, Chris; Steward, Fiona (2000), Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A
Handbook for Researching Online, London: Sage Publications, ISBN 0-7619-6627-7
Paccagnella, Luciano (1997), "Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for
Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities", Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 3 (June)
Puri, Anjali. "The Web of Insights - The Art and Practice of Webnography," International
Journal of Market Research. Volume 49, issue 3, 2007.
Tomlinson, Mark. "The Academic Robotics Community in the UK: Web based data
construction and analysis of a distributed community of practice" (Working Paper). Danish
Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics.
Torres, L., Gonzalez, H., Ojeda, J., & Monguet, J. (2010). "PLEs from virtual ethnography of
Web 2.0". In The PLE Conference 2010. Barcelona. http://pleconference.citilab.eu.
Verhaeghe A., Prof. Dr. Schillewaert N., Van den Berge E., 2009, Getting answers without
asking questions, ESOMAR ONLINE RESEARCH '09]

External linksEdit

Virtual Ethnography