Micro-ethnography: TheGlobalWe
Arrival Story:
As a person who has little association with virtual communities, other than to keep in touch with geographically distance friends and relatives on a very ad hoc basis, the decision of which community to study was not an easy one. Many uncertainties emerged. Primarily, if using the only virtual community I am a member of; can I be impartial when observing a community of loved one’s that were part of my life long before we started conversing by social network sites? I was also troubled by the thought of researching people I know well and did not feel that I would be able to separate my preconceived ideas created in the real world from those observed in the virtual world.
However, I identified that a motivation for embarking on the ELDC course was to see if it is possible to use the virtual world as a medium for patients/carers to correspond with healthcare professionals in an effective (if not more so) way than they might do in a face to face encounter. In order for this to work I consider it necessary for people in a virtual world to not lose their ‘real life’ identity whilst online and not adopt the persona of a fictitious avatar, for example. So, in order to study this I identified it necessary to know them in both worlds. A work colleague of a few years appeared to fall in the middle ground between complete stranger and childhood friend/family member. Fortunately a colleague with an online community was readily identifiable.
BanPlasticBagsEdinburgh (BPBE) was a community that I was aware had an online presence, created by a colleague.
The Journey:
The destination envisaged was towards the BPBE static website and to discover what other routes passed through there. However, on further investigation it became apparent that BPBE was a small organisation housed with a much larger community. There are recurrent opportunities when starting on the static BPBE site to travel (via hyperlink) into TheGlobalWe community. Inevitably then, much time on this ethnography journey was spent within TheGlobalWe and this became the environment to base this ethnographic.
Considering whether the community I chose to study should be aware of my actions I decided that as no information was password protected it can be considered of a public domain.
As the researcher I lurked, observed and reviewed previous interaction between members. This ethnography was studied in its natural state and those being studied did not know they were a part of my micro-ethnography. On a project of such a small scale I did not consider it right to participate in subjects that were of obvious importance to the members without having much insight or genuine interest of my own.
TheGlobalWe on Prezi
Observations:
It is apparent that the founder of TheGlobalWe is a ‘networker’ as described by Kozinets (2010). The smart use of social networking enables campaigns such as BPBE to reach a wider community and potentially gain support from other communities where members may have values complementary to its own cause. The ‘World Opera for World Peace’ is powerful and has potential to attract an audience drawn to the music, possibly before appreciating the motivation of the community as outlined by the mission statement. Strikingly, on arrival into TheGlobalWe community, reference to the Dalai Lama is paramount. Whilst being in the forefront of content, this remained a particular area that I did not feel comfortable commenting on. Inevitably, an ethnographer will make observations but their categorising and processing of observations are not easily made without influence of their own experiences, beliefs and morals. Hine (2000) suggests that the ethnographers ‘process of self-discovery’ can be necessary in developing insight into this community. Perhaps in a larger project more attention would be paid to the moral underpinning of a community and what bearing the individual ethnographer (with their individual beliefs/values) has on the study, but for the purposes of this community I have neither the time, information or intention to express opinion on something as complex as moral belief and behaviour. However, I can verify that the face to face observations, I have made over the past few years, regarding the founder of BPBE are in keeping with the persona that is displayed within the virtual community.
It is worth mentioning here that when the observations were already completed I mentioned to my colleague, for courtesy, that I was using his virtual community for this ethnographic study. With no apparent concerns to my studying the community his response did state that he ‘should make sure the site is up-to-date’. Whilst made as a passing comment this does demonstrates how, in order to study a community in an undisturbed, natural state (Hine, 2000) the ethnographer may need to be ‘undercover’.
Observing this virtual community enabled me, as a novice ethnographer, to conclude that it is possible to develop a virtual community to enhance a face to face connection. In this micro-ethnography it also appeared that the person does not necessarily alter themselves as a result of having a virtual presence. Despite thorough consideration of ethical implications of observing people prior to embarking on the journey through cyberspace I failed to appreciate that what I observe for myself may be ethically sound but the sharing of these findings in a transparent manner for the reader is complex. This would require further consideration if an additional study were to be conducted. As for my personal motivation regarding virtual communities as support networks within healthcare, the ethical consideration would become much more complicated. Encouragingly, the findings of this simplistic study would indicate that the negotiation of such ethical challenges could be of long term benefit to patient education/support and treatment.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
I found the ‘entry story’ quite interesting here, that the initial interest opened up a much wider, and perhaps for you more interesting, community to study. It is a nice reminder that when approaching ethnographic research we should perhaps be open and flexible about the subject, rather than having rigid, preconceived ideas about what will be studied.
I was also interested in the references you made to ‘lurking’ and undertaking covert research. This seems to be a delicate ethical issue, and you raised some interesting points. Although not necessarily applicable to this micro-ethnography, I would certainly be cautious about doing ‘undercover’ research where the results may be published. But, the wider point is, I think, an epistemological one. If we consider that a ‘lurker’ can be *more* objective, we are surely assuming that an individual is capable of perceiving a situation ‘exactly as it is’; accessing an external reality. That stance would appear to ignore the perceptual, social and cultural qualities that might work through the observer, and colour any attempt at ‘discovering reality’ anyway. So for me Hine’s (2000) claims on striving for objectivity through ‘lurking’ are post-positivist at best.
As for whether the public nature of the web is a ‘worry free’ domain for researchers, I am reminded of Kozinets dilhema (2010) – that web content could be viewed both in terms a ‘space’, or a ‘text’, with each implying something quite different. A space might imply ‘public’, and any conversations in that space might be considered the same as conversations overheard in public. However, if the web *page* is considered a text, questions about ownership arise. If something is written by an individual, do they not have rights to it, despite its ‘publication’ in public space? Interesting questions!
November 12th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Thanks Stephanie for this ethnography. Like Jeremy I found it interesting how your journey evolved and you were unexpectedly transported from a smaller site to a bigger one. It’s like finding a door to a secret chamber, which makes you look at the initial site in a different way (the quote from Elliot resonates with me a lot – thanks!).
I’m not sure if the sites can be considered static though – a problem I encountered in my exploration – doesn’t the inbuilt interactivity, even the number of ‘likes’ make them more dynamic? The Web allows for much more participation and interaction than in in the late 1990s when Hine was wondering if it can subjected to the ethnographic enquiry. What do you think?
What I found interesting in your approach was your condition that you know the community member offline so that you can verify their authenticity and your insistence on dealing with real life identities. Apart from the question about wholeness/fragmentation of identity and the possibility to reflect either online I wonder if the offline requirement does not introduce a sort of asymmetry. Although the members do meet in actual life (as documented in the snippets of their online activity), do they actually know each other before/when they arrive in the community?
Second, you were quite strict about keeping the status of a lurker in order to keep the environment undisturbed. However, like you, I wonder to what extent we can remain objective in interpreting the observations as we perceive them through our own, often narrow, experience. Can we rely on the effectiveness of self-discovery without getting involved and so do justice to the community in our account?
You also touched on the transparency of reporting your findings, especially when being interpreted by the reader. I really liked that reflective side of your report, especially when it comes to ethics.
November 13th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I liked the fact that there was a place for lurkers. The very word, though widely used, has such negative nuances: lying in wait with nefarious purpose; skulking around; up to no good; being furtive and, somehow, dirty (durty). To find that it is ok to lurk and, in fact, have a legitimate lurking purpose was refreshing. I was struck also by the fact that there are rules for lurking, which again suggests that online environments and groups are far more policed than may appear.
November 14th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Stephanie, thanks for posting the observations on this community. It was interesting to see observations based on a community where you had real connections with some of those involved… and the points that arose due to this special apsect.
November 14th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Hi Stephanie,
I think this was quite a brave decision, choosing a group you know personally. I did wonder if someone would choose to do their ethnography on ‘our community’.
I can’t add to the comments already made by Jeremy and Ania except to say that I liked that you found the ‘virtual’ persona is similar to the ‘real life’ one. And it’s great that this task has been of use to you in your work.
November 16th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Hi Steph,
I’m only just getting around to exploring everyone’s ethnographies and very much enjoying discovering something interesting with every new click! Your discussion of the ethical implications of lurking and covert reporting certainly got me thinking about how I approached my mini ethnography. I will go back and try to unpick the ethics in my own context. You also made me think about the balance of on/off line interactions and how the community might be shaped by this balance. The nature of the connections in the GlobalWe seemed high level – communicating a sense of shared beliefs in environmental activism perhaps. However in contrast the connections in Ania’s #eltchat seem much more specific and oriented to day to day issues of ELT. An interesting comparison perhaps?
I really like your prezi too! Thanks
November 18th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Steph, I enjoyed the way you used prezi to pull together fragments – a kind of bricolage – around your ethnographic themes – it was really nicely done. It’s prompted a really interesting set of comments too, particularly around the ethical issues you raise. I’d agree with Jeremy that whether we think in terms of the internet as ‘space’ or ‘text’ does inflect how we approach questions of ethics. There’s a nice paper by Bassett and O’Riordan in which they align the ‘space’ metaphor with the ‘human subjects’ research model, moving on to suggest we need to move beyond that and see internet spaces as partly textual, and partly a ‘space’ in which ‘humans’ interact – some good ties in with this week’s theme there too. It’s at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bas_full.html if you fancy a read.