See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316421223

Digital Ethnography and Media Practices

Chapter · December 2013

CITATIONS READS

59 1,509

2 authors:

Elisenda Ardevol Edgar Gómez Cruz

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elisenda Ardevol on 17 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Elisenda Ardévol and Edgar Gómez-Cruz

Companions to Media Studies series. Angharad Valdivia (U. of Illinois), edited by Fabienne Darling-Wolf, Temple

University in Philadelphia.

Abstract

This chapter deals with ethnographic methodology used when studying digital media,

social contexts and cultural practices. The chapter starts with an introduction to

ethnography and its challenges when going digital. It then provides an overview of the

different approaches to digital ethnography depending on the object of study: (a) the

ethnography of online communities, virtual worlds and social media sites; (b) the

connective ethnography proposal through online and offline field settings; and (c) the

ethnography of everyday life and the issue of audiences and creative practices in

digital media. Finally, we will discuss methodological issues relating to how to

conduct online ethnographic fieldwork, including participant observation, interviews,

as well as digital tools for registering, analyzing and presenting data and ethical

considerations.

Introduction

Since the emergence of computer mediated communication (CMC), and

especially since the spread of Internet use and the World Wide Web boom, scholars

and institutions have been interested in studying the social processes that accompany

the development of these digital communicative and informational technologies

(Wellman 2004; Silver & Massanari 2006). A growing body of work is comprised of

methodological and epistemological reflections on how to study such phenomena.

1
From many different disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, scholars have used

ethnographic methods as a research strategy to study uses of the Internet, online social

practices and how people engage in networked relationships and to account for the

moral order of their activities (Lindlof & Shatzer 1998; Mason 1999).

At the same time, the cultural turn in communication research has raised the

status of ethnography as an adequate methodology for studying the conditions of

production, reception and consumption of media. Media ethnography seeks to develop

an understanding of active audiences by exploring genre readings, issues of race and

gender, family living and identity, in order to understand media as a cultural form

(Murphy 1999, p. 207). As a consequence, ethnographic studies are well established

today among the social sciences and its different fields of research, including Internet

studies, the social studies of technology, and communication and media studies.

The conventional notion of ethnography within anthropology, as epitomized

by Malinowski’s work, implies the understanding of cultural formations from an

experiential point of view. Ethnographers must attend to people’s sayings and doings,

including their material condition of existence and their world views: how people

build meaning regarding their experiences and actions. Participant observation and in-

depth interviews are at the core of ethnographic fieldwork. Through participant

observation ethnographers gain access to people’s ways of life, not only by observing

behavior but also by sharing their daily life routines and social meanings. In this

sense, ethnographers’ subjectivity and socialization play an important role in the

construction of ethnographic knowledge (Lee & Ingold 2006). They are not factors

that should be avoided for the sake of greater objectivity but constituent elements that

have to be controlled and put into work in the data analysis and interpretation

(Bateson 1972). The result of ethnographic fieldwork is a theoretical description of

2
the cultural patterns that cross-cut different domains of social activity. Therefore, the

ethnographic perspective is anchored in the ‘grounded’ experience of the

ethnographer, as well as being contextual and holistic in its scope.

Moving this ethnographic approach to the study of the Internet poses many

methodological challenges. What is the purpose of Internet ethnography? How might

the traditional methods in ethnographic research be used in online fieldwork? Are

there other related methods that are specifically needed to study Internet

communication? These kinds of questions have brought to the fore the need for

methodological reflection about the specificity of the medium. Different

categorizations— such as virtual, connective, hypermedia, netnography or digital

ethnography—had been proposed to indicate the particularities involved in “adapting”

the ethnographic method to Internet research.

This chapter explores some of these different approaches to ethnography and

how they also imply different ways of understanding the Internet as a field and object

of study. We propose the term "digital" to embrace these varieties of Internet-based

research approaches because it is more semantically neutral and more useful to refer

to the different practices and contexts mediated by digital technologies.

Digital ethnography

Christine Hine (2000) argues that the Internet, as an object of study for the

social sciences, has been theorized in two ways: either as a cultural form or as a

cultural practice. As far as the cultural form is concerned, she understands the

"cultures of Internet" as the study of the specific cultural forms based on the Internet,

the paradigmatic example of which can be the development of netiquette, emoticons

and specific online norms and values. In other words, Internet cultures are cultural

3
forms that emerge on the Internet like virtual world’s players, webcam girls, hackers,

bloggers, and other collectives whose senses of self, belonging and group

socialization are shaped significantly by digital media. As a cultural practice, Hine

suggests that, as happens with other creations, the Internet may be analyzed as a

"cultural artifact." This implies the study of practices which are not necessarily

specific of the Internet but acquire different dimensions online, as, for example, the

making of videos on Youtube or sharing photos on Flickr or Instagram.

Focusing specifically on the relationship between the ethnographic method

and Internet studies, we distinguish three different approaches, which can be defined

as follows: virtual ethnography or ethnographies of cyberspace, connective or

online/offline ethnographies, and ethnographies of Internet in everyday life. These

methodological approaches evolve in parallel to the different Internet development

periods. The first starts from the Internet’s beginnings to the late 1990s, the second

coincides with the expansion of the WWW, and the third corresponds to the

development of the so-called social media or social networks sites, approximately

from 2005 until the present day. However there is a close relationship between

technological stages, users’ appropriations and the elaboration of different

ethnographic strategies, the fact is that, even today, these three ethnographic

approaches coexist in several and remixed ways.

Virtual ethnography

The first empirical studies applying ethnographic fieldwork to the Internet

were conducted by scholars from different backgrounds – mostly from

communication and media studies –and were based on triggering off metaphors that

lead to a conceptualization of the Internet as a new kind of social space. This

4
‘cyberspace’ was conceptualized as an immaterial place where disembodied selves

could freely interplay, forming ‘virtual communities’, and where new social and

cultural patterns flourished and gave birth to a brand new ‘cyberculture’ (Shields

1996; Porter 1996; Jones 1997).

The notion of cyberspace, taken from the novelist William Gibson who

defined it as "a consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate

operators" and as a "graphical representation of data abstracted from banks of every

computer in the human system of an unimaginable complexity arranged in the non-

space of the mind" (Gibson 1984, p. 30), was used by activists such as John Perry

Barlow and academics like Michael Benedikt to refer to the ‘space’ made possible by

the Internet. In the popular as well as in the sociological imagination, cyberspace or

‘virtual space’ almost became synonymous with the Internet itself (Gómez-Cruz

2007).

Furthermore, at this early stage, the role given to technology to transform

culture and society was highly important. Thus, the first social studies of the Internet

considered that the properties of the medium such as virtuality, spatiality,

disintegration and disembodiment were shaping new modes of social activity (Slater

2002). For example, considering that, at this time, computer mediated interaction was

mainly textual, anonymity was taken as an intrinsic characteristic of the medium. This

is illustrated by Steiner’s famous cartoon, in which two dogs are sitting in front of a

computer and one says to the other: "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

Along the same line, in 1994 Howard Rheingold inspired another powerful

metaphor: virtual community. Based on his own experience in participating in the

electronic bulletin board system (BBS) known as The WELL, he argued that long-

term participation in these electronic forums creates a shared system of beliefs, values

5
and norms, and specific behaviors. These enact a collective sense of belonging and

create a new kind of community, based solely on common interests, goodwill and

solidarity. Sherry Turkle (1997) coined a third compelling concept: virtual identity. In

Life on the Screen, and drawing on her research with Multi-User Domain (MUD)

users, she explained how people could perform different and alternative online

identities. The goal, then, was to establish whether computer mediated interaction was

changing our own understandings of self and self-identity, and to what extent virtual

identities were free from the social and cultural constraints of ‘real life.’

If the connection to the Internet was like "entering into cyberspace" and one

could create alternative online identities, whose socialization shaped virtual

communities, it was tempting to study these communities as though conducting

exploratory research of a "primitive culture," as in the early days of anthropology.

Firstly, ethnography was considered the proper method for describing an unexplored

territory (as the non-western cultures were for early western anthropologists), and,

secondly, computer mediated interaction seemed to give rise to new genres of

discourse that could be described ethnographically (Herring 1996; Mayans 2002).

Therefore, the Internet was conceptualized as giving birth to an entirely new culture

that was going to transform our culture at large —the new world of Cyberia (Escobar

1994). Meanwhile its population was studied as the “natives of the Internet Islands”

(Bakardjieva 2005), following Malinowski’s canonical work on the Trobriand

Islanders.

Despite the fact that in anthropological studies the idea of fieldwork in a

community bound to a single territory had long been questioned (see Marcus 1995;

Hannerz 2003), these conceptualizations led to the development of a large corpus of

ethnographic fieldwork on Usenet, BBS, chat rooms, electronic forums, etc., mainly

6
focusing on social and cultural dynamics (Reid 1994; Markham 1998). The

ethnographic gaze was focused on how individuals come together via computer-

mediated interaction and develop common rules, collective norms and values and as a

sense of belonging (Jones & Kucker 2001,p. 217). Among these early ethnographic

studies, most were related to communication studies and audience reception research,

such as online fan communities of soap operas (Baym 2000) and television series or

films (Jenkins 1992), showing how audiences were constructing meaning by taking

mass media popular culture as their referent.

The idea that prevailed was that the nature of those online communities was

metaphysical and, therefore, it was sufficient to merely study them by analyzing the

"life on the screen." This was translated into a limitation of the field site to a single

online community and into studying only online interactions. Scholars made

aprioristic assumptions about time, space and the differentiated nature of online

culture, online identity and online social ties. Virtual ethnographies were largely

based on the a priori attribution of properties of the web by establishing a comparison

with the physical world and “face-to-face” relationships. Cyberspace worked as a

unifying ethnographic field site to describe all kinds of social life occurring on the

Internet, aligning different artifacts, uses and practices. The concept of Cyberspace

has also contributed to the idea of the Internet as a unified object of study with

inherent characteristics and properties (Ardévol & Estalella 2012).

Throughout the 1990s and despite these conceptual constraints, the detailed

descriptions of many different “virtual communities” demonstrated that computer

mediated interactions were culturally rich and users engaged in a fully meaningful

social life. Those studies were a first step to legitimize the ethnographic study of

online social relationships, given that some earlier conceptions considered computer

7
mediated communication to be “less real,” socially weak or second-class

communication, unable to create sustainable social bonds and culturally significant

worlds (Walther & Burgoon 1992).

Ethnography of Virtual Worlds is another approach that is currently growing

(Boellstorff, George, Nardi, Pearce & Taylor 2012). Ethnographers propose an

epistemological and methodological response to the challenges of "virtual worlds" or

meta-verses, especially in online game cultures (Pearce 2009). So, more recently, we

found exclusively online ethnographies that justify their methodological strategy by

pointing to the delimitation of their object of study to the “virtual cultures” that

emerge from online interaction. For example, Corneliussen and Rettberg (2008, p. 1)

clarify this position with the use of a metaphor: "Being new to the culture of the

World of Warcraft may be compared to being an immigrant in a foreign culture." The

problem is focused on studying the process of socialization that takes place through

online participation. In this sense, other authors propose that virtual worlds can be

studied as examples of “subculture” (Gelder 2007). Boellstorff, for example, when

studying Second Life, argues that the distinction between virtual and real is not an

assumption of the ethnographer but something that has to be explained through

fieldwork. He explains that this division is a consequence of a performative act of the

players to set apart their “virtual world” from the “actual world” by the “worlding” of

different cultural domains (Boellstorff 2008, p. 18).

Connective ethnography

The second ethnographic approach to the study of digital technologies,

especially the Internet, could be called connective ethnographies. Although the

concept of Virtual Ethnography coined by Christine Hine was a hallmark for the

8
ethnographic study of the Internet, another book also opened a different understanding

of ethnographic fieldwork: The Internet: an ethnographic approach, by Daniel Miller

and Don Slater. Both of these texts were published in 2000. These researchers, with a

background in material culture, media politic economy and social studies of science,

abandon the idea of Cyberspace in favor of a situated study of the Internet. Hine

contextualizes Internet use in media practices, following the controversial case in

1998 of the British nanny accused of murdering the North American baby she was

taking care of, while Miller and Slater locate it in the broader context of Trinitarian

culture. Both blur the divide between online and offline fieldwork. Instead of studying

Internet cultures as separated and independent features from the real world, these

authors begin to speak in terms of online/offline as a form of recognition of the

multiple connections and the close relationship between these two social grounds.

Christine Hine herself was one of the first to reflexively apply the ethnographic

paradigm of the constructed nature of the field in anthropology (Marcus 1998) within

Internet studies, systematizing her “principles for virtual ethnography” from a multi-

sited and connective notion of ethnography (Hine 2000). Hine approaches virtual

ethnography through participant observation of different web pages, as well as their

links with the mass media system, breaking with the idea of community and place as

central for the definition of the ethnographic field site, understanding field site as the

empirical locale where research is conducted.

At the same time, Internet demography and usage also changed, with a

significant growth in the participation of various groups and communities in the

network and the integration of the Internet into everyday mundane activities

(Wellman & Haythornthwaite 2002). As in the case of the monographs mentioned

above, other scholars began to do fieldwork “inside” and also “outside” the screen,

9
exploring the relationships between online and offline interactions. As Bakardjieva

notes, the "Internet is exactly the place where the online and offline meet. Its study

should mean keeping the vision on both sides at the same time, especially because

very occasionally Internet is only a bridge between one offline and another"

(2008,54).

Authors like Leander and McKim, or later Hine (2007), use the concept of

“connective ethnography” to address the issue of integrating research across online

and offline situations. Fields and Kafai (2008) also use the notion of connective

ethnography to focus on how gaming expertise spreads across a network of youths at

an after-school club where they simultaneously participate in a multi-player virtual

environment, using online and offline participant observation, interviews, video

recordings and collecting online and offline social interaction data. For Jenna Burrell

(2009), connective ethnography is not only a question of mixing methods and

combining online and offline strategies, but also of constructing the field site as a

heterogeneous network mapped out from the social relationships of the subjects and

their connections to material and digital objects and to physical or virtual locations.

The notion of the ethnographic field linked to a place-focused concept of culture

needs to be reformulated. As Hastrup and Olwig have argued for contemporary

ethnography at large, instead of viewing the field as a “site” it is better to understand

it as a set of relations, focusing on the connections between multiple locations where

actors engage in activity. Thus, "ethnography in this strategy becomes as much a

process of following connections as it is a period of inhabitance" (Hastrup & Olwig

1997, p. 8). Translating these notions of an anthropology of the contemporary, Postill

(2008) notes that taking the Internet as a field for ethnographic research does not

10
imply using the notions of community or social networks but to understand that there

are different forms of mediated sociality.

Internet in everyday practices and media ethnography

Nowadays, the Internet has become so widespread and complex that

attempting to describe a single platform ethnographically, even a massive one such as

Facebook, would be to dismiss the multiple interrelationships and overlapping uses of

digital technologies. The technological landscape has evolved and is no longer just

about computers, Internet and platforms. Wireless networks, mobile phone apps,

video game consoles and so on, are all interconnected and we can say that our

communicative ecosystem has been almost entirely digitized. Concurrent use of

multiple media has become a regular feature of everyday life and, quoting Mark

Deuze (2011, p.137): "media have become so inseparable from us that we no longer

live with media, but in media".

This third understanding of the Internet as media is enriched by a twofold

perspective: that of the social shaping of technology as an approach to technological

design (Bijker and Law 1994) and the domestication theory in media studies. Both

highlight users’ agency in the innovation process and how technology is creatively

appropriated by users (Silverstone, Hirsh & Morley 1992; Haddon 2005). The move

to ethnography occurred in media studies when researchers began to observe the

media experience in everyday contexts (Schlecker & Hirsch 2001), seeking

alternatives to traditional social science research on media effects. Thus, media

ethnography and Internet ethnographies converge in situating the focus in everyday

practices.

Today, the Internet, associated with other informational technologies,

represents a potential challenge (and complement) to mass media and entertainment

11
industries. From Cultural Studies approach, digital technologies are commodities that

have symbolic value in the “circuit of culture” (Du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay and

Negus 1997). In addition, this new media landscape forms new means of production,

circulation and consumption of media products that intertwine with significant

practices of representation and reproduction of social identities. In this sense, the use

of digital technologies is part of a process of appropriation, which develops as people

incorporate these technologies in everyday life.

Several authors have explored the relationship between audiences and cultural

production in new media (Harries 2002; Marshall 2002, 2004; Jenkins 2004).

Although they define this relationship in different terms, they agree on the rise of a

productive audience and the blurring between the spheres of production, distribution

and consumption. For Nick Couldry (2004), theorizing media as practice implies a

change of paradigm in media studies. It changes the focus of media research: from

semiotic analysis of text content to the people’s doings and sayings, defining media

practices as the open set of practices relating to, or oriented around, media. One

consequence of this is to anchor media theory in ethnographic knowledge,

overcoming “mediacentrism” to study cultural production. As Elizabeth Bird (2010)

points out, one of the main problems of studying media in relation to cultural

production has been that audience research has traditionally been based on the

concept of “audience response” to specific media. So, in The audience in everyday

life, she argues that we need to:

move “beyond the audience” as a theoretically definable construct, but we

should not be abandoning the goal of understanding real people, living real

lives in which media play an ever-increasing, if certainly problematic, role.

12
 (…) Only ethnography can begin to answer questions about what people really

do with media (Bird 2003, p. 191).

These authors put forward the potential for setting the analysis of media

production and consumption within ethnography, as a methodological tool for

understanding people’s motivations and engagements with media. Moreover, media

ethnography involves studying media practices beyond the parameters set down by

theoretical assumptions of cultural production, based on the circulation of media

products. Media practices may be understood as a wider set of practices - most of

them with, around and through digital technologies – relating to creative processes

carried out by individuals, collectives, governments, transnational corporations and

other social agents with different goals and purposes. Coleman brings up that the aim

of media ethnography is, then, to explore: "the complex relationships between the

local practices and global implications of digital media, their materiality and politics,

and their banal, as well as profound, presence in cultural life and modes of

communication” (Coleman 2010, p. 487).

Summing up, this analysis of the relationship between ethnography and the

different fields and objects related to Internet and media research attempted to show

the complex relationship between a work’s theoretical framework, its object of study

and its empirical reference. On one hand, we have pointed out the importance of

theoretical concepts and epistemic approaches to shape the ethnographic field and

frame our object of study. On the other hand, we have highlighted the development of

a methodological inquiry about what it means to do fieldwork through and with

digital technologies, and how to deal with technologically mediated practices.

Therefore, we propose to talk about digital ethnography as a way to engage with the

13
central role of digital technologies in everyday life, and also to understand the

importance of field construction, reflexivity and the development of tools, as key

elements of the ethnographic endeavor (not limited to digital objects). Next, we will

see how the Internet has been conceptualized as a research tool and as a field for

conducting ethnographic research, giving an overview of the different elements which

an ethnographer faces when studying mediated digital interactions.

Carrying out digital fieldwork

Annette Markham (2004) argues that the Internet has been understood both as

a field site and a research tool. The first concept highlights the way in which the

Internet and its different platforms and technologies have become the context of

participant observation —that is, the field site or the locus of the social interaction

between the ethnographer and his or her respondents. The second puts the emphasis

on the Internet as a means for data collection. Several authors have explored the

Internet’s possibilities as a research tool (Mann & Stewart 2000; O'Connor & Madge

2003; Mason, Coffey, & Atkinson 2005; Fielding, Lee & Blank 2008) with which to

conduct surveys, interviews, network analysis and focus groups as well as presenting

research results (Hewson, Yule & Vogel 2003; Dicks, Soyinka & Coffey 2006).

However, from an ethnographic standpoint, the question is how to integrate data

gathering into a wider perspective of fieldwork. Ethnographic research does not make

a clear-cut distinction between data gathering and “being in the field.” Although plain

observation, interviewing and other ways of collecting materials (e.g. questionnaires,

etc.) are part of ethnographic fieldwork, what characterizes the method is the

participatory approach: the social presence of the ethnographer “in the field.” In

ethnographic fieldwork, first we weave relationships and afterwards we collect data.

14
Fieldwork, its continuity and its results, depend largely on the relationships we build

during the whole process of investigation. Ethnography is a slow science

methodology, as ethnographic fieldwork ideally must take at least one year in order to

develop a glimpse of the different rhythms and moments that punctuate our social life.

Here we will take into consideration how we manage our relationships and

conduct research in digital settings. While some authors argue that “virtual” worlds

are a different kind of social space than those created by face-to-face communication,

we will suggest that the nature of the social space does not depend on the

characteristics of the medium, but on the kind of social interactions that people are

engaged in.

Constructing the field

As we have seen, carrying out fieldwork in ethnographic research involves

tracing personal relations in different social contexts. Delimiting the field is not only a

question of finding a place or a community within which to conduct research, but also

of constructing our field site according to our research questions and objectives. As

Vered Amit clearly puts it:

The ethnographic field cannot simply exist, awaiting discovery. It has to be

laboriously constructed, prised apart from all the other possibilities of

contextualization to which its constituent relationships and connections could

also be referred. (…) the construction of an ethnographic field involves efforts

to accommodate and interweave sets of relationships and engagements

developed in one context with those arising in another (Amit 2000, p. 6).

15
 Digital fieldwork requires adjustments in how ethnographers define the

empirical site of their research: Where to conduct participant observation? How to

obtain access to settings and research subjects? What ethical dilemmas do these

decisions involve? Rather than deciding in advance to conduct ethnographic research

on a virtual community or in a specific social media, the ethnographer should best

choose the topic of interest, and then define the field and how that topic involves

different modes of communication, people, things and locations. For instance, one

could begin fieldwork by attending a rock festival and end up participating in chat

rooms, visiting the blogs of musicians’ fans and sharing files with them through

instant messaging on mobile phones. As the Internet forms part of the daily life of

many of the collectives we study, and as they do not necessarily make a distinction

between their online, offline and indeed phone relationships, we follow our subjects

across different ethnographic contexts and settings.

Digital ethnography does not establish fixed dichotomies between online and

offline realms. There are no substantive differences between “online” and “offline”

ethnographies but rather different kinds of environments and ways of social co-

presence. Digital ethnographers may conduct participant observation and interviews

through an array of digital technology devices and therefore must develop the

technological, social and cultural competencies necessary to fully participate in these

socio-technical contexts. As image, sound and movement are becoming more and

more common features of social interaction, not only for web design and online

communication, but also for instant messaging on mobile phones and GPS monitoring

systems, the digital ethnographer has to move between different research contexts and

methods. With this development, the division between “online” and “offline”

ethnographies tends to collapse even more and digital ethnography must be conveyed

16
as a mediated practice, as a remix of methods that has to be engaged with the

researcher’s experience. This means a technological enhanced but always embodied

ethnographic practice.

Conducting digital fieldwork

Digital ethnographers use digital media to generate data in two ways: first,

they use digital visual and sound recorders, notebooks or PCs to write their field notes

and, usually, the same devices to collect textual data, visual material, and sound and

movement created by the subjects of study (Garcia et al. 2009, p. 64). Moreover, the

interaction of the ethnographer with the participants of the research also takes place in

digital environments, and the whole interaction can be recorded and preserved.

By conducting participant observation, the ethnographer accomplishes three

main methodological goals: to gain presence in a concrete social space, to define her

or his identity as a researcher in the field site, and to let respondents know about the

research interests in order to obtain informed consent (in the ethnographic method,

this consent used to be tacit and not necessarily expressed through formularies). The

last, but not least, important factor is to have a first-hand experience of a particular

technology, as any other participant would. Our experience doing digital ethnographic

research suggests that the participation observation depends largely on our skills in

managing textual, visual, sensory and kinetic components when interacting with

research participants. Furthermore, the process of “observation” itself involves

dealing with textual and visual information displayed on the screen, such as the use of

emoticons, pictures, colors, page layout and graphic designs, as key elements of the

digital interaction, as well as the interactive capabilities of the technological scripts.

Gómez-Cruz’s ethnographic fieldwork on digital photography is presented as

an empirical example of the former discussion. The author’s fieldwork was conducted

17
between September 2008 and March 2010 and was focused on digital photographic

practices based on the photo-sharing platform Flickr. After a few months of observant

participation on the site, uploading photos, commenting and participating in different

groups, he found a group of amateur photographers called SortidazZ. This group,

geographically based in Barcelona, was very active and organized many physical

encounters and photowalks (gatherings to take pictures in a chosen area). When

confident enough, he decided to send his first public message to the group introducing

himself and explaining the research he was trying to carry out:

Let me introduce myself. I'm Edgar Gomez, a Mexican based in Barcelona and

currently writing my doctoral thesis on digital photography practices (an

ethnography from a sociological and anthropological point of view). I told

Carles (KaosBeast) my interest in joining the group and he politely told me to

publicly launch. I am a novice in photography and this is a hobby I enjoy.

However, my interest in the group is twofold as I'd like to share my concerns,

questions and fieldwork. Finally, you are the experts and the idea is to learn

from you, with you. Well, you will say what you think, for now, if you please,

I'm in for the next photowalk.

regards

Edgar

The group welcomed him with jokes (“are we so weird that somebody wants

to study us?”) and warm hospitalary messages. Soon, it was clear that the group’s

communication was not reduced to Flickr but was actively open and experimenting

with different social media, apart from gathering together for photographic sessions or

simply hanging out around together. Members of SortidazZ tend to shoot, process,

show each other photos, videos and webpages, make comments on any platform while

18
they are with other members, use whatsapp (a mobile chat application) as a group’s

backchannel, etc. All of this could easily happen while members of the group were

drinking beers together on some Barcelona terrace. Therefore, the ethnographer

decided to follow and trace those connections which took him to Facebook, Twitter,

Gmail, SMS, phone calls, skype, as well as to some photographic walks and personal

encounters. Through these trajectories, activities and “sites,” the field was instantiated

in different locations and devices.

At the same time, Gómez-Cruz’s profiles in all the social media sites had a

permanent link to his blog where, during the fieldwork, he wrote several reflections

on photography, his life as a PhD student and his daily experiences of the research

process. The blog was but one of many devices to develop a constant "presence in the

field." Although, at the beginning, the blog was only intended to be a "public face" for

his work and not understood as a research tool (see Saka, 2008), to his surprise, group

members began to leave comments on the posts, send him links or comment on the

content of the blog, in the blog itself and in other electronic forums. The ethnographer

was not only actively creating the field, but also weaving himself into it. Along with

Flickr, Facebook and Twitter accounts, the ethnographer’s blog served as a form of

personal exposure: a way of performing his identity as a researcher while becoming

an active "practitioner" of digital photography.

In this long-term ethnographic study of digital photographic practices of a

heavy-use Flickr group, Gómez-Cruz observes that the photographic object itself is

changing from a memory device to a connective practice, and from having a primary

social cohesion role to becoming a key element in new group’s formations in daily

life. Helping, further on, to understand digital photography as an assemblage of

several practices (shooting but also processing, sharing and exhibiting). These

19
production practices are more and more related to digital mediated socialization,

especially since photography is embedded in mobile phones, social networks and

sharing sites.

While participant observation allows the ethnographer to get to know the

collective life, norms, values and dynamics of a group, the in-depth interview is a

gateway to the perceptions and meanings that respondents attach to their actions. At

the same time, the interview is a unique setting that gives the research participants an

opportunity to reflect aloud on their own practices and express their thoughts,

emotions and feelings related to their experiences. Moreover, ethnographic interviews

are useful for contrasting the feelings, impressions and conjectures raised by the

researcher during immersion in the field. It is obvious that during fieldwork there are

many occasions for engaging in conversations with our respondents about the

ambiguities of social life and that these are a valuable source of understandings.

Although some conversations naturally occur while others are directly addressed by

the ethnographer or the social actor, in-depth interviews constitute, undoubtedly, a

different social context from conversations.

In-depth interviews are explicitly set up by the ethnographer and are typically

open-ended and more flexible than structured or semi-structured interviews whilst

being more focused than natural conversations. The nature of the questions depends,

again, on the research topic and the kind of contextualization that the ethnographer

needs for interpreting data, but it is useful to have some kind of script that helps to

conduct the interview. As happens with online conversations, online interviews can be

conducted through different Internet technologies, from chat or instant text messaging

systems, electronic forums and email, to voice and videoconferencing webcam

devices. Some authors argue that the characteristics of the socio-technical context or

20
medium impose communicative restraints, while others argue that they open new

research possibilities. For example, textual interviews (and specially those based on

anonymity) are considered useful for approaching sensitive or elusive topics, since

they tend to allow people to express themselves more freely (Orgad 2005; Illingworht

2001; Sanders 2005). Although this will pose problems of authenticity and

spontaneity, textual interviewing allows respondents to put more thought into their

responses. The anonymity factor may also balance the power relationship between

interviewer and interviewee because the latter may feel freer to challenge researchers

than they would in a face-to-face interview. In general, online methods allow the

interviewee to gain control of the course of the interview but, ultimately, his or her

commitment will depend on personal motivation and engagement with the research.

Nevertheless, anonymity may be overestimated, since an ethnographer usually knows

the person before the interview and has previously established a rapport. Besides, it is

not imperative to acknowledge the “real” name of the person when studying online

interactions and patterns.

In Gómez-Cruz’s work, some online interviews using instant messaging

systems and Skype proved to be very useful as a way to establish a complex

chronology because informants “showed” examples by copy-pasting the specific URL

of the photo they were referring to, not only from their own streams but also from

other’s people’s photos, blogs or webpages. At the same time, while dealing with the

issue of self-portraits, specifically women’s nude or erotic self-portraits, the

respondents were more comfortable talking about their experience online with a sense

of trust in the interviewer and, at the same time, with the feeling of being protected by

their own private space. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the way these individuals

produce photos in their private/intimate space to then upload them to the “public”

21
space of social networks. One of them even preferred to create a diary of her thoughts

about her practice than to be interviewed. Here is a pair of short examples of the

different narrative styles about online self-portraits that arose in the research:

Chat interview fragment:

For me public photos are those on the web and private are not?? Hehehehe No,

this is not true ;) There are private public photos, but do not know if the right

word is private = S

Email interview fragment:

Pictures of Emma [her own pictures uploaded] are to me almost like the

images of a character (but do not think I have problems with multiple

personalities). In any case, the nudes are of her ... It's not the same to see the

image of a woman to see her in person. Even many people who know me

personally cannot believe that I'm the one shown in these pictures.

While in chat interviews, the ethnographer must deal often with emoticons and

short and no-grammatical sentences, email interview answers resemble more to the

epistolary genre. These different narratives bring up the fact that in the social

sciences, the instruments with which we investigate are always part of the context of

research and shape the textures of our data, but this does not necessarily mean that

online interviews are better or worse than face-to-face ones for ethnographic analysis.

Furthermore, online interviews may generate new interview genres, since it can take

the form of an epistolary genre, as shown in email interviews, or it can enter the

online universe of the respondent as in the case of an interview conducted in a virtual

world or the interchange of hyperlinks during an instant messaging chat interview.

The flexibility of online techniques allowed the ethnographer to gather important data

that could probably not have been gathered any other way.

22
Digital data analysis and the ethnographic description

Field notes and field diaries are essential to ethnographic research. Traditional

field notes, tables and drawings are handwritten, and some online ethnographers still

employ this method in addition to the multiple forms of capturing and registering

information as audio and video records, printouts, screen captures, navigation videos

or social bookmarking, and visualizing social networks software available to us today.

Some ethnographers also use wikis and blogs as their fieldwork diaries. Online field

notes or logs, however, should not be confused with the web pages, blogs, wikis or

social media profiles that ethnographers create to present themselves and to share

their research with participants and respondents. These online sites are usually open

to a general audience while field notes are kept private.

Field notes help researchers catalogue, describe and develop theories from

their observations, as well as record their emotional reactions and impressions. For

example, in his ethnographic study, Gómez-Cruz’s field notes were handwritten in a

fieldwork diary while, at the same time, he used his smart phone to take notes and

photos on (and of) the field. The smartphone was, at once, field, data gathering tool

and a constant connective device with the group members. Another example of new

ways to carry field notes was the use of “annotated screenshots”, which became very

helpful as “images of connections” to be used in the interviews about specific topics

discussed, as a sort of photo-elicitation technique. For example, Gómez-Cruz used his

own self-portrait photography in order to create a threat in his fieldwork Flickr site.

The answers he got included accounts about self-portraits, but also several

photographs taken and commented by the respondents.

At the end, the results of the ethnographic fieldwork are an array of very

different kinds of data, from field notes to visual, aural and textual data or transcribed

23
interviews. To analyze them, we must consider our theoretical assumptions as well as

the broader context in which the data has been extracted and objectified. Qualitative

Data Software Analysis may help us in that process, such as Atlas.Ti or Nvivo. This

software is useful for archiving, coding, hyperlinking, sharing and representing visual

and other digital ethnographic material but it does not replace analysis and

ethnographic description (Pink 2007, p. 139). Thus, the ethnographer becomes a

reflective and heuristic figure that bridges the gap between the reliance on

ethnographic techniques (participant observation, in-depth interviews), field

experience (immersion, building of trust, bodily engagement) and analytical tools

(software for textual and visual analysis, analytical categories).

It is imperative that we distinguish between the analytical categories of our

theoretical framework from those that come directly from the field; that is, the

distinction between “etic” and “emic” terms, categories and conceptualizations. For

the sake of clarity we say that the role of ethnographers is to meaningfully explain the

studied universe, taking into account the vernacular categories of their research

subjects (emic) and developing theoretical frameworks that help to organize them

(etic), so that they can bring some light to their research questions. It means to

displace the researcher from her or his own vernacular categories, even when these

may be largely shared with their correspondents in the field. As Coleman explains,

"the fact that digital media culturally matters is undeniable but showing how, where,

and why it matters is necessary to push against peculiarly narrow presumptions about

the universality of digital experience" (Coleman 2010, p. 488).

24
Ethic dilemmas

Finally, the outlet of an ethnographic process is usually a monograph; a

theoretical oriented description of the object of study we have constructed while

following our subjects’ practices in different field contexts. Thus, ethnographers must

make decisions about how to present research findings to their respondents, taking

into account online audiences (Bakardjieva & Feenberg 2001). This raises ethical

issues regarding the fact that, in most digital ethnographies, the field is constructed

and maintained through online interaction that is open to the general view. Keeping

privacy and anonymity on the net is not only difficult but may enter in conflict with

the ethnographic task. This was the case with Gómez-Cruz’s ethnography of digital

photography practices that was mostly carried out through social media platforms. He

contacted the group under study via their site profile and the process of gaining

acceptance by the group could be followed by any outsider, as well as all the

fieldwork interactions that took place in his profile and in his field blog. This being

the case, the ethical requirements of informed consent might be clearly exposed but

respondents were very aware that full anonymity could not be guaranteed.

Digital ethnographers are troubled by the same worries about self-exposure

and privacy as their research subjects. A website or a blog may be regarded as a

public space, as it is publicly accessible, yet interactions that occur within that social

space may be perceived by the participants to be mainly private. Therefore, Internet

ethnographers would be well advised to consider their initial self-presentations to

their research subjects carefully and to be aware of the fact that some of their online

interactions are permanently and publicly exposed. The digital ethnographer should

negotiate the level of anonymity that participants wish to maintain when data is fully

elaborated and results presented in different formats. Not all the interactions with the

25
participants during fieldwork have been carried out in public social spaces, and the

ethnographer must preserve participants’ confidentiality by changing names,

nicknames and other traceable footprints when it is required.

We propose, along with other authors such as Forte (2004), to think of digital

ethnographic ethics from the point of view of reciprocal and mutual collaboration.

The co-production of the field is an activity that can also afford ethical values, such as

sharing knowledge and experience with our respondents. Ethnographers use different

terms such as “informants”, “participants”, “co-participants” or even “co-researchers”

in contrast to quantitative research that would traditionally use the term “subject” to

refer to the people that participate in their research. These different terms tell us

something about the relationship between researchers and researched as they describe

the kind of involvement that the ethnographer is expecting from the research subjects.

What is important to note is that, in any case, the people that participate in the

ethnographic research not only are familiar with the ethnographer but they also

contribute to the configuration of the object of study and to the ethnographer’s

knowledge of the empirical situations. They are more than passive subjects of study,

but active respondents and somehow, co-participants of the research process with the

ethnographer. This collaborative aim must be transferred to the ethical concerns when

writing the ethnographic results or monograph. Digital technologies are well-designed

for sharing information at distance and it makes easy to let participants know about

the final product. As we have seen, Edgar Gómez-Cruz shared his own findings along

the way through his blog and profile in Flikr and later, he allowed participants to

comment the chapters of the monograph related with the group experience. This

practice is not exempt of conflict as people may not agree with the results. The

researcher has to ensure that the participant’s opinions are treated with respect and the

26
"emic" interpretations accepted, but the "etic" part of the analysis depends entirely on

the ethnographer. Whichever is the level of involvement of the participants in the

research, it is important to highlight the fact that ultimately, is the ethnographer who

controls the process of interpretation, the theoretical framework and the accountability

of the final product.

Some final remarks

To conclude, ethnography, as access to knowledge of the intersubjective

experiences and contexts of interaction, brings a new perspective to the empirical

study of media. It goes beyond the qualitative and quantitative audience studies

focused on hermeneutic or semiotic interpretation of the media text and political

economy. On one hand, from a critical perspective, the close study of media

experience allows us to analyze the local effects of an unequal allocation of resources

and rights and the processes of moral valuation (Lindlof & Shatzer 1998, p.172-173).

On the other hand, ethnographic studies of digital media particularize the role that

digital media play in the different spheres of social activity and among a great variety

of collectives, from teenagers to political activists, and from audiences to media

industries and government bodies. Indeed, digital media ethnographies are central to

the reformulation of studies in journalism, democratic free-expression practices and

current debates about market and commons models of property. Ethnographic

accounts complement other kinds of studies, not only by representing people’s hopes,

desires and expectations, but also by pointing to asymmetrical relationships, opposite

values and challenging visions of futures.

Digital ethnography is ethnography by other means, and the question is to

what extend these “other means” transform ethnographic practice. We must ask, with

27
Sarah Pink, how “the developments in digital, mobile and locative media challenge us

to rethink the ways in which media(ted) research and the ethnographic encounter is

understood” (Pink 2012, p.12). On one hand, we have demonstrated that the digital

ethnographer needs to be co-present in the field using the same technological devices

as her o his subjects of study. On the other hand, digital ethnography incorporates new

technologies of recording, analyzing, sharing and presenting data and results along

side with new specific ethical challenges. Last but not least, digital ethnography refers

to the emergence of new topics of research –f.e. virtual worlds- and the

transformation of our objects of study –traditional media studies have to deal with

how digital media modifies media practices and the new dimensions of our notions of

sensoriality, spatiality and temporality. Methodology is also about how we create

knowledge and technological shifts not only have implications in the way we

experience and research media, social relations and cultural formations, but also how

they are theorized (Lapenta 2012, p. 131). Sarah Pink addresses this point by saying

that “our experiences of new technologies are therefore encouraging us to think in

new ways theoretically which in turn reflect back on how we theorize old media and

on how we engage with media as researchers (Pink 2012, p. 13). Digital

methodologies may be fueled with old understandings but, at the same time, they

might take us to different ways of knowing and to different types of knowledge.

28
Bibliography

Amit, V. (ed.). 2001. Constructing the Field. Ethnographic Fieldwork in the

Contemporary World. London: Routledge.

Ardévol, E. & Estalella, A. 2012. “Uses of the Internet in European Ethnographic

Research.” In U. Kockel, M. N. Craith and J. Frykman Blackwell Companion to

the Anthropology of Europe. London: Wiley-Blackwell Ed.

Bakardjieva, M. 2008. "How can Researchers make sense of the issues involved in

Collecting and Interpreting Online and Offline data? A response to Shani

Orgad." In Internet Inquiry, eds. Annette Markham and Nancy Baym. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Bakardjieva, M. 2005. Internet Society. The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage.

Bakardjieva, M. & Feenberg, A. 2001. “Involving the Virtual Subject: conceptual,

methodological an ethical dimmensions”. Journal of Ethics and Information

Technology, 2(4): 233-240.

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Baym, N. 2000. Tune in, log on: soaps, fandom, and online community. London:

Sage.

Bijker, W. & Law, J. 1994. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in

sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bird, E. 2010. “From fan practice to mediated moments: the value of practice theory

in the understanding of media audiences”. In B. Bräuchler and J. Postill (eds),

Theorising Media and Practice. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 85–104.

Bird, E. 2003. The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World. New York:

Routledge.

29
Boellstorff, T., George, E., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. (2012). Ethnography

and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Pricenton: Princeton University

Press.

Boellstorff, T. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the

Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Burrell, J. 2009. “The Fieldsite as a Network: A Strategy for Locating Ethnographic

Research”. Field Methods. 21: 181-199.

Corneliussen, H. & Rettberg, J. 2008. Digital culture, play, and identity: A World of

Warcraft reader. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

Coleman, E. G. 2010. “Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media”. Annual Review

of Anthropology, 39(1): 487-505.

Couldry, N. 2004. “Theorising media as practice”. Social Semiotics, (2):115-132.

Deuze, M. 2011. "Media life". Media, Culture & Society, 33(1):137-148.

Escobar, A. 1994. "Welcome to Cyberia." Current Anthropology 35(3):211-235.

Fielding, N, RM Lee and G Blank. 2008. The SAGE handbook of online research

methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Fields, D. & Kafai, Y. 2008. “A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing

and diffusion in a tween virtual world”, International Journal of Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning. 4(1): 47-68.

Forte, M. 2004. “Co-construction and field creation: Website development as both an

instrument and relationship in action research”. In Readings in virtual research

ethics: Issues and controversies, Elizabeth A. Buchanan (Ed.), London:

Information Science Pub. 219-245.

30
Garcia, C., Standlee, I., & Bechkoff, J. 2009. “Ethnographic Approaches to the

Internet and Computer-Mediated Communication”. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 38(1): 52-84.

Gelder, K. 2007. Subcultures: cultural histories and social practice. New York:

Taylor & Francis.

Gibson, W. 1984. Neuromancer. New York: Ace.

Gómez-Cruz. E. (2012). De la Cultura Kodak a la Imagen en red. Una etnografía

sobre fotografía digital. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.

Gómez-Cruz, E. 2007. Las Metáforas de Internet. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.

Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. 1997. Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds

of a field science. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Haddon, L. 2005. "The Innovatory use of ICTs." In Everyday Innovators,

Researching the Role of Users in Shaping ICTs. L. Haddon, E. Mante-Meijer,

B. Sapio, KH, Kommonen, L. Fortunati, and A. Kant (Eds.), Springer.

Hannerz, U. 2003. "Being there... and there... and there!: Reflections on Multi-Site

Ethnography." Ethnography 4(2):201.

Harries, D. 2002. The Book of New Media. London: British Film Institute Publishing.

Hastrup, K. & Olwig, K. 1997. 'Introduction'. In Siting Culture. Olwig, K. and K.

Hastrup (eds). London: Routledge.

Herring, S. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-

cultural perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hewson, C., Yule P., Laurent D., Vogel C. 2003. Internet Research Methods. London:

Sage.

Hine, C. 2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.

31
Hine, C. 2007. “Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science”. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 618–634.

Hine, C. (ed.). 2005. Virtual Methods. Issues in Social Research on the Internet.

Oxford: Berg.

Jenkins, H. 2004. “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence”. International Journal

of Cultural Studies. 7(1): 33–43.

Jenkins, H. 1992. Textual Poachers. Television Fans and Participatory Culture.

London: Routledge.

Jones, S. 1997. Virtual Culture: identity and communication in cybersociety.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, S. & Kucker, S. 2001. “Computer, the Internet and Virtual Cultures”. In

Culture in the Internet Communication Age. J. Lull ed. London: Routledge.

Lapenta, F. 2012. “Geo-media based methods and Visual Research”. In Advances in

Visual Methodology. Pink, S. (ed.) London: Sage.131-150

Leander, K. & McKim, 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.

Lee, J. & Ingold, T. 2006. “Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socializing”. In

Locating the field. S. Coleman and P. Collins (ed). Oxford: Berg. 67-85

Lindlof, R. & Shatzer, M. 1998. “Media ethnography in virtual space: Strategies,

limits, and possibilities”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2):

170-189

Mann, C. & Stewart, F. 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: a

handbook for researching online. London: Sage.

32
Marcus, G. 1995. "Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited

ethnography." Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1):95-117.

Marcus, G. 1998. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton University Press.

Markham, A. 2004. “Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research”. In

Qualitative Research: Theory, Methods, and Practice. D. Silverman (ed.),

London: Sage. 95-124

Markham, A. 1998. Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. CA:

Altamira Press.

Marshall, P.D. 2004. New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.

Marshall, P.D. 2002. “The New Intertextual Commodity”, in The New Media Book,

Dan Harries (ed.) pp. 69–81. London: British Film Institute.

Mason, B. 1999. "Issues in Virtual Ethnography". In Ethnographic Studies in Real

and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected

Communities. K. Buckner (ed.). Proceedings of Espirit i3 Workshop on

Ethnographic Studies. Edinburgh: Queen Margaret College.

Mayans, J. 2002. Género chat o cómo la etnografía puso un pie en el ciberespacio.

Barcelona: Gedisa.

Miller, D. & Slater, D. 2000. The Internet. An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.

Morley, D. 2006. Media, modernity and technology: the geography of the new.

London: Routledge.

Murphy, P. 1999. “Media Cultural Studies' Uncomfortable Embrace of Ethnography”.

Journal of Communication Inquiry. 23: 205

O'Connor, H. & Madge, C. 2003. "Focus groups in cyberspace': using the Internet for

qualitative research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal.

6(2):133-143.

33
Orgad, S. 2005. “From Online to Offline and Back: Moving from Online to Offline

Relationships with Research Informants.” In Virtual Methods. Issues in Social

Research on the Internet. Hine, Ch. (ed.) Berg. 51-65.

Pearce, C. 2009. Communities of Play. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

Pink, S. 2007. Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage.

Pink, S. 2012. Advances in Visual Methodology. London: Sage. Porter, D. (ed.). 1996.

Internet Culture. NY & London: Routledge.

Postill, J. 2008. “Localizing the internet beyond communities and networks”. New

Media & Society. 10(3): 413-431

Reid, E.M. 1994. Cultural formations in text-based virtual realities. M. A. Thesis.

University of Melbourne. Available:

http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr/work.html

Rheingold, H. 1994. Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

MIT Press.

Sanders, T. 2005. Researching the Online Sex Work Community. In Virtual Methods.

Issues in Social Research on the Internet, Ch. Hine (ed.) Berg. 67-80,

Schlecker, M., & Hirsch, E. 2001. ”Incomplete knowledge: ethnography and the crisis

of context in studies of media, science and technology”. History of the human

sciences, 14(1): 69-87.

Shields, R. 1996. Cultures of Internet: virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies.

London: Sage Publications.

Silver, D., A. Massanari. 2006. Critical cyberculture studies. New York: University

Press New York.

Silverstone, R. Hirsh, E. & Morley, D. 2003. “Information and communication

technologies and the moral economy of the household”. InConsuming

34
 technologies; Media and information in domestic spaces. R. Silverstone and E.

Hirsch (eds.). London: Routledge.15-31.

Slater, D. 2002. "Social Relationships and Identity Online and Offline." In Handbook

of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. Lievrouw &

Livingstone, S. (eds.). London: Sage.

Turkle, S. 1997. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York:

Touchstone Books.

Walther, J. & Burgoon, J. 1992. "Relational communication in computer-mediated

interaction." Human Communication Research 19(1):50-88.

Wellman, B. 2004. "The three ages of Internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago."

New Media & Society 6(1):123-129.

Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

35

View publication stats