[Air-L] virtual ethnography

[Pearse Stokes]

This debate is really getting going now!

As far as virtual ethnography is concerned (and I think even our 
discussion here falls into some of these traps) there are some problems 
with it as it is generally performed.

This first is just as Rhiannon illustrated "there is a tendency for 
internet researchers to play fast and loose with the term "ethnography." 
Interviewing on-line participants or "observing" on-line interaction is 
often just plain old qualitative research (which is perfectly 
legitimate) and the latter on its own might be discourse analysis. Part 
of what makes work ethnographic is the presentation of the data. I 
expect "thick descriptions" and substantial verbatim comments covering a 
range of participant experience, not a few illustrative snippets." 
Perhaps this stems from people conducting ethnography without 'proper 
training' or a wider cultural shift towards shorter, more journalistic 
articles (I'm certainly guilty of this) and reports for business 
consumption (also guilty).

Furthermore within this discussion we talk about the 'virtual field'. My 
understanding of good ethnography is that is should be reflexive and 
holistic. Meaning we should perform a method (of research, of 
participation, of 'writing the culture') that is best suited to the 
particular field site. The 'virtual' is not a field site any more than 
'the real' is. And so virtual ethnographers often fall into that same 
dichotomous relationship anthropologists of old did (and anthropologists 
since have worked so hard to shift) ... that is the 'anthropological 
gaze' upon the 'other'.

Each research project should be approached with an awareness that the 
'site' does not necessarily conform to our expectations in terms of 
where it begins and ends. In my recent research I have been writing 
about the 'Pro-Anorexia' phenomena. This started with some 'virtual 
ethnography' but I knew it would be more like cyber-anthropology once I 
started to really get down to it. A great deal of the report is 
identifying 'where' 'Pro-Ana' is, because just like all 'virtual' 
phenomena it transcends the 'virtual'. I'm sure everyone who is involved 
in this discussion will agree - as they are sitting in the REAL world, 
thinking and physically typing. So to research the 'virtual' is to 
assume a shape of your field site. It would be like Malinowski going to 
one Island in the Trobriands and deciding that was his only site or 
research - he would miss out on the whole Kula Ring!!

As Laetitia said " we coul interpret this as a bit elitist." and 
Laetitia is right, but isn't this the place for such elitist discussion? ;)

If you would like to read my report its here: 
cyberanthropology.wordpress.com

Thanks for this great debate!!

Pearse