Online ethnography

Online ethnography also required as virtual ethnography or digital ethnography is an online research method that adapts ethnographic methods to the explore of a communities in addition to cultures created through computer-mediated social interaction. As modifications of a term ethnography, cyber-ethnography, online ethnography and virtual ethnography as alive as many other methodological neologisms designate particular variations regarding the keep on of online fieldwork that adapts ethnographic methodology. There is no canonical approach to cyber-ethnography that prescribes how ethnography is adapted to the online setting. Instead individual researchers are left to specify their own adaptations. Netnography is another realize of online ethnography or cyber-ethnography with more particular sets of guidelines and rules, and a common multidisciplinary base of literature and scholars. This article is non about a particular neologism, but the general a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to form or have something. of ethnographic methods to online fieldwork as practiced by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars.

The range of methodologies

Ethnographers have approached the study of the Internet in a range of different ways. A quality of terms refer to various formulations of methodological approaches to cyber-ethnography. numerous of these seek to continues their own dialog with the build tradition of ethnography. regarded and identified separately. formulates its relation to the develop anthropological tradition in different and sometimes inconsistent ways. Some think that ethnographies conducted online involve a distinctive methodological approach. Others think that cyber-ethnography is not a distinctive form of ethnography although researching the Internet ethnographically forces us to reflect on fundamental assumptions and opinion of ethnography.

Methods choices need to be directly adapted to the quality of questions a researcher seeks to answer. The main return of cyber-ethnography reside in the scope and scale of the available data.[] Other advantages add seeking input directly from participants. For example, posting raw fieldnotes on a blog and allowing participants to leave comments can supply transparency. Cyber-ethnography also authorises for a variety of data collection types and including audiovisual formats, on various platforms such as websites, social networks and forums.

It is important for cyber-ethnographers to consider whether online interactions are sufficient for them to develop a deep apprehension the community. it is for not clear if identity performances in online settings should be thought of as disjoint from offline identities or if they are continual with offline identities. When researchers feel that apprehension the relationship between the online and offline identities of members is necessary, they may seek to meet with informants face-to-face.

Urban ethnographer Jeffrey Lane suggests that it may increasingly be essential to weave online and offline identities of informants together in outline to create an accurate portrayal of urban street life. He borrows media scholar Danah Boyd’s concept of “networked publics,” which are “simultaneously 1 the space constructed through networked technologies and 2 the imagined collective that emerges as a solution of the intersection of people, technology, and practice,” to frame his argument. Interactions that take place offline mayone way to a participant observer but are further contextualized when examining online forms of communication between the same parties involved in the offline interaction. In the same way, information that is forwarded online can significantly influence activities that take place offline. For instance, one of Lane’s informants encounters a video on Twitter suggesting that there are violent incidents taking place in the area. In response, he sends a text blast to any of his contacts to be cautious that evening. In outline to preserve the construction of a networked public, researchers should take into consideration both online and offline identities and activities of individuals. Lane also acknowledges that not any scholars may agree with his argument, but they will eventually have to face the issue as advancements in technology continue to increase.

However, other cyber-ethnographers have argued that difference between online and offline selves is similar to the different identity performances that occur in other contexts. This perspective views identity issues in cyber-ethnography as consistent with those of traditional ethnography. Researchers should thus consider how community members relate their online and offline selves. If it is normal for community members to bring together their online and offline identities and meet face-to-face then it makes sense that the ethnographer should observe or participate in these offline interactions in order to fully understand the community as was done by Sherry Turkle. This finding has been supported by Sara Ross in her work on legal anthropology in urban executives such as Toronto, Canada.

However, many cyber-ethnographers including Hine and Walstrom believe that participant observation in the offline setting can be biased by asymmetry between the researcher and the member. This is because community members rely on data processor mediated communication they may be at a disadvantage to a researcher who understands their online interactions, but also employ face-to-face communication. As it is often the effect that researchers are interested in understanding the interactions in the online context and that comparing online and offline identity is not important, credible ethnographic studies can be done in online-only contexts.

One of the leading disadvantages of online ethnography is the need for the ethnographer to possesstechnology-based skills. Some studies might only require elementary computer skills, but others may require sophisticated knowledge of technologies and tools such(a) as web-based applications, analytical tools, and computer programming. The development of such technologies tends to grow faster than the methodology literature thus "there is little consensus on how [to] bestand analyze new media data".

The temporal nature of online data can also be an issue. Cyber-ethnographers might ask, "What is data of the present?" Robinson 2011 states that in cases such as YouTube videos and subsequent comments, "the offered cyber-reality may be interpreted as a continual accumulation of all past input by members or participants". Cyber-ethnographers also needs to also think of his/her own identify and how "[it] might become component of a feedback loop with those he/she is studying" and whether or not it eschews the data collected and the integrity of the study. Thus, there is a need for cyber-ethnographers to be especially flexible and reflexive in their practice of ethnography.

Another limitation of cyber-ethnography is that it complicates matters of privacy. Although researchers have always had to take people who were not originally part of an ethnographic study into consideration, cyber-ethnography allows researchers to actually see “identifiable records of these connections and interactions.” As a result, researchers may have to take extra precaution in asking informants’ for their permission to participate in their research, as well as in concealing the identities of said informants.