Ethnography of the Online/Offline Continuum: An Introductory Review (MSTU 4020 - Final)
Abstract Ethnographers researching social practices and interactive communication within computer and non-computer mediated environments face various challenges in the field. That is to say, ethnographic research methods have been further complicated by the online/offline continuum. For this analysis, the online/offline continuum is defined as an interactive and communication phenomenon characterized by the distribution of identities and social practices that shift between computer and non-computer mediated environments. The following literature review is an introductory exploration into various theories and constructs that guide discussion about meaningful approaches to conducting ethnography of the online/offline continuum. Specifically, the following questions are addressed:
1) How can conceptions of space, place, and time help us to understand and approach researching the online/offline continuum?
2) How have scholars been reworking ethnographic research methods of the online/offline continuum?
3) What new constructs and forms of ethnography are emerging because of online/offline continuum?
4) What new formulations have emerged as a result of the literature reviewed?
Discussion
Based on literature presented, several new insights and formulations have emerged about ethnographies of the online/offline continuum.
First, emerging ethnographies of the online/offline phenomenon are characterized by connective methods, reflective approaches, experiential epistemologies, relational theories, and experimental practices.
Second, researchers must continually revisit interpretations of space, place, and time to further guide research of the online/offline continuum.
Third, ethnographers must formulate and rework definitions of the online/offline continuum and of alternative forms of ethnography to expand upon those mentioned here.
Fourth, ethnographers must continue to investigate social practices in relation to computer and non-computer-mediated environments.
Finally, researchers must be incline to consider the “cyberspace knowledge question” (Hakken p. 182) to better understand pedagogical approaches and assessment practices in relation to the online/offline continuum. The last formulation is also important to how we understand the influence of technologies on doing research (Wolf, 1992, p. 127) doing community, and seeing ourselves throughout the online/offline continuum.
Outline
Space, Place, & Time
- Manuel Castells' Space of Flows (1996)
Virtual Ethnography
- Christine Hine (2000)
Reworking Ethnographic Research Methods
- Christine Hine's "connective ethnography" (2007)
- danah boyd (2008)
Ethnography as Epistemology
- David Hakken's "knowledge question of cyberspace" (1999)
Emerging Constructs & Ethnographies
- Johan Fornas, et. al "digital borderlands" (2002)
- Robert Kozinet's Netnography (2010)
- Michael Wesch's digital ethnography (2010)
Trying to Move Forward (MSTU 4020; Week 8)
This is exactly what I look like while typing this post & trying to narrow down a topic for the final project (except for the blond hair).
This week's prompt ask 1) What do I think I need in order to move forward on a final project? and 2) how can I get what I need?
The assumption is that I've identified some themes and I've begun to refine my questions. I've certainly identified some themes, though it seems that while trying to refine my questions only more of them spring up. For instance, after reading Nicholas W. Jankowski's article "Creating Community with Media: History, Theories, and Scientific Investigation, I began to ask myself more questions related to Baym's (1999) questions:
- What forces shape online identities?
- How do online communities evolve overtime?
- How does online participation connect to offline life?
- How do online communities influence offline communities?
I've asked similar questions throughout the semester (though stated a bit differently). Here's what I have so far:
- What is the difference between 'real' and virtual?
- How does our participation with/in both 'real' and virtual relate to identity formulation?
- What makes up a virtual terrain; cyberspace?
- What constructs virtual space? Identities? Data?
- What is the relationship between identity and data within cyberspace?
- Does defining the space of cyberspace even matter?
- How does identity formulation occur and knowledge production emerge from/within digitally connective spaces and processes?
- How can we measure identity formulation in relation to our participation with/in digitally connective spaces and processes?
- How can we measure how knowledge production/creation emerges within digitally connective spaces?
- What can other disciplines and theories, aside from sociology and communication, tell us about what cyberspace is, our relation to it, and our participation with/in it (identity formulation & knowledge production)?
So in other words, I have no idea where to begin for the final project.
Moving forward, I really need to hone in on one or two of the questions above. It seems that most of the questions deal with identity formulation and knowledge production, and how we can measure them both epistemologically and ethnographically. The philosophical questions of what is cyberspace? and what constitutes real/virtual? may be, as professor Kinzer noted in class, career-long inquiries (paraphrasing).
In terms of what I need? To be on the look out for more perspectives and readings that address identity formulation, ethnography, discoursive practices, and epistemology of online and digitally connective spaces/processes.
Understanding the Cyberspace Continuum: A Critique (MSTU 4020; Week 7)
The following is a critique on Adrian Mihilache's “The Cyber Space-Time Continuum: Meaning and Metaphor” for a graduate course Social & Communicative Aspects of the Internet at Teachers College, Columbia University. Abstract Adrian Mihalache’s article “The Cyber Space-Time Continuum: Meaning and Metaphor” argues against “ready-made” (2002, p. 293) ideas about spatial meanings and metaphors of cyberspace. Mihalache believes that these notions suffer from two major deficiencies: 1) Cyberspace as a preexisting territory and, 2) Cyberspace as a metric space. He points to the works and ideas of poet William Blake as “extremely” useful examples for making sense of cyberspace (p. 29). In the interest of researching connections between theories about space, place, time and practices according to identity formulation and knowledge production through online interaction, I found the author’s arguments persuasive. However, I also found his arguments critique-worthy, particularly pointing to the hierarchal division the author implies between the arts and sciences to understanding the cyberspace-time continuum. Considering Mihalache’s positions, I seek to further investigate the question: How does identity formulation happen and knowledge production emerge from/within digitally connective spaces like cyberspace? This question requires in-depth analyses that borrow from various theories and practices that span across multiple disciplines. Keywords: cyberspace, space-time, place, identity, virtual, real, epistemology, ethnography
Critique
Multiple Meanings, Multiple Approaches: Understanding the Cyberspace Continuum In his article “The Cyber Space-Time Continuum: Meaning and Metaphor,” Adrian Mihalache argues against “ready-made” (2002, p. 293), and mostly scientific, ideas about spatial meanings and metaphors of cyberspace. Mihalache believes that these ideas about cyberspace suffer from two major assumptions: 1) Cyberspace is a preexisting territory and, 2) Cyberspace is a metric space. Mihalache further argues that mathematical operations are not meaningful to interpret cyberspace because they are limited to understanding virtual space as “a set of objects and rules of interaction,” which fail to explain the connection to the real world (p. 295). To interpret cyberspace as a preexisting territory “waiting to be filled” (p. 293), and to describe it using mathematical operations reinforce a false divide between ‘real’ and virtual worlds. Finally, instead of understanding cyberspace as topographical or in relativistic time-space terms, cyberspace, according to Mihalache, is better understood through the works and ideas of multimedia artist, William Blake.
To better understand meaningful metaphorical constructs of cyberspace, Mihalache points to the multimedia technology of William Blake’s plates. Blake’s plates “blended the text and the image” (p. 296) to produce new meaning. Mihalache believes that multimedia technology, past and present, is imbued with aesthetic power and imagination necessary for meaningful production. He relates modern web experience to the function of Blake’s multimedia works in how both mediums “transform . . . events into lived, meaningful experiences” (p. 297). Through analyzing Blake’s multimedia work, Mihalache asserts a view of cyberspace as a place where spatial divisions are useless metaphors based on an the precept of connection.
While I agree that a false dichotomy exists between the ‘real’ and virtual, I find Mihalache’s explanations of interpreting cyberspace ironically narrow. William Blake’s multimedia art and his notions about the Web are powerful examples of interpreting cyberspace. However, in celebrating these metaphorical interpretations of William Blake, namely by rendering scientific notions useless, Mihalache perpetuates (perhaps unintentionally) the very thing he critiques: a false divide. Though Mihalache points to scientific and mathematical concepts to understanding cyberspace, he does so only to set up a hierarchal model that separates the aesthetic from the material. These ideas do not necessarily function independent of one another. Mihalache refers to Blake’s idea that the arts and sciences can exist, but only in “minutely organized particulars” (p. 296). Even Blake’s slight acknowledgment of the interconnectedness between the arts and sciences is further weakened by Mihalache’s commitment to argue against, for example, post-Newtonian ideas, which I believe can provide equally useful interpretations about what cyberspace is and how we can make meaning in, and of, the digital age. To this end, Mihalache seems to forget the peculiar idea that scientific concepts can be aesthetically meaningful. To better understand identity formulation and how knowledge production emerges from/within digitally connective processes, I argue for broader perspectives and insights that span across disciplines. Going forward, I will look toward various theories, disciplines, and practices to address the following research questions:
1) How does identity formulation happen and knowledge production emerge from/within digitally connective spaces?
2) How can we measure when identity formulation happens and knowledge production emerges in digitally connective spaces, particularly in the context of learning environments?
In-depth analyses that employ multiple disciplines and theories may inspire multi-method approaches to pedagogical and ethnographic practices (Leander & McKim, 2003). Notions that perhaps even Mihalache, in the spirit of William Blake’s works and ideas, can appreciate.
References
Leander, K. M. & 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. doi:10.1080/14636310303140 Mihalache, A. (2002). The Cyber Space-Time Continuum: Meaning and Metaphor. The Information Society: An International Journal, 18(4), 293-301. doi:10.1080/01972240290075138