Three lies of digital ethnography
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The relative novelty of digital ethnography as a research methodology, along with the challenges that it moves to classical understandings of fieldwork, participation and representation, results in a repertoire of professional illusions through which digital ethnographers justify their work when confronted with the disciplinary culture of anthropology. This essay is based on the author’s reflexive experience of researching digital media use in China, and updates Gary Alan Fine’s 1993 article “Ten Lies of Ethnography” by identifying three lies of digital ethnography. Illustrating each of these lies through an archetypal figure, the “networked field-weaver”, the “eager participant-lurker” and the ‘expert fabricator”. This article argues for the need to confront methodological illusions and embrace the tensions behind them as useful heuristics for conducting ethnographic research on, through and about digital media.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creemos firmemente que el acceso al conocimiento debe estar libre de la lógica del enriquecimiento y no debe tener como objetivo el lucro personal o colectivo.
La Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología Social de la SOMEPSO está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional License.
References
Amit, V. (Ed.). (2000). Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world. Londres: Routledge.
Baym, N. K. (2009). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research? En: A. N. Markham y N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp.173–189). Londres: SAGE Publications.
Baym, N. K., y Markham, A. N. (2009). Introduction: Making smart choices on shifting ground. In A. N. Markham y N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp.vii–xix). Londres: SAGE Publications.
Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology, 18(2–3), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269172042000249264
Beaulieu, A. (2010). From co-location to co-presence: Shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40(3), 453– 470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709359219
Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth ❤social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. En: D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp.119–142). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 217–231.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021316409277
Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling. Continuum: Journal of Media y Cultural Studies, 20(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310600641737
Burrell, J. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, 21(2), 181–199. https://cutt.ly/vTl3Z5X
Clifford, J., y Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. California: University of California Press.
Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The Lesbian Cafe. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124195024003002
De Seta, G. (2015). Dajiangyou: Media practices of vernacular creativity in postdigital China [Tesis doctoral]. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., y Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058876
Duneier, M. (2011). How not to lie with ethnography. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 1–11. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01249.x
Farnsworth, J., y Austrin, T. (2010). The ethnography of new media worlds? Following the case of global poker. New Media y Society, 12(7), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809355648
Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022003001
Fine, G. A., y Shulman, D. (2009). Lies from the field: Ethical issues in organizational ethnography. En S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, y F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp.177–195). Londres: SAGE Publications.
Geiger, R. S., y Ribes, D. (2011). Trace ethnography: Following coordination through documentary practices. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.455
Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there. . . And there. . . And there! Reflections on multi- site ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381030042003
Hastrup, K. (1990). The ethnographic present: A reinvention. Cultural Anthropology, 5(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1990.5.1.02a00030
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Londres: SAGE Publications.
Hine, C. (2005). Research sites and strategies: Introduction. En: C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp.109–112). Oxford: Berg.
Hine, C. (2007). Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00341.x
Hine, C. (2013). The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, D. R., y Marcus, G. E. (2008). Para-ethnography. En: L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp.595–597). Londres: Sage Publications.
Howard, P.N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media y Society, 4(4), 550–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144402321466813
Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.1.021
Ito, M. (1996). Theory, method, and design in anthropologies of the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14(1), 24–26.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., y Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. Nueva York: New York University Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Londres: Routledge.
Leander, K. M., y McKim, K. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday ‘sitings’ of adolescents on the Internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631032000092037
Levy, K. E. C. (2015). The user as network. First Monday, 20(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i11.6281
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
Markham, A. N. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in ambiguous Internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.641993
Moser, S. (2007). On disciplinary culture: Archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0816-007-9033-5
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Cyberspace, anthropological theory, and the training of anthropologists. Social Science Computer Review, 14(1), 34–35.
O’Dell, T., y Willim, R. (2011). Composing ethnography. Ethnologia Europaea: Journal of European Ethnology, 41(1), 27–39.
Orgad, S. (2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline relationships with research informants. En C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp.51–65). Oxford: Berg.
Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00065.x
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., y Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Londres: SAGE Publications.
Postill, J. (2017). Remote ethnography: Studying culture from afar. En L. Hjorth, H.
Horst, A. Galloway, y G. Bell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography (pp.61–69). Londres: Routledge.
Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the network. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(3), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034901
Wittel, A. (2000). Ethnography on the move: From field to net to Internet. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). https://cutt.ly/RTl8wT6