Qualitative Debate Argument and Notes

I.                 They must prove that qualitative work is both narcissistic and unprofitable fiction.

a.      In order to argue narcissism, they need to prove intentionality on a large scale, which is near impossible.

b.      In order to argue unprofitable fiction, they must prove that qualitative work is both composed on known falsities and is not useful.

c.      I argue that all research provides temporary truths which are useful as long as they can be sites for further inquiry.

II.               Calling qualitative work fiction assumes that research can create both true and untrue products.

a.      If there are wrong types of knowledge production (qualitative work), then there must be right modes of knowledge production which provide objective truths.

b.      We know that this is not the case. In Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn explains that all scientific truth is temporary; It is incremental. Therefore, all we cannot fully attribute objective truths to any research method.

III.              Modes of knowledge production (manufacturing of facts) are inherently tied to the culture in which they arise; what is and can be true is defined by those who devise the method of knowledge production.

a.      This is an idea that arises out of Shapin and Schaffer’s Leviathan and the Air-Pump which chronicles the social influences on science during the early days of the scientific method.

b.      Robert Boyle’s explanation of empirical research is that it relies on a coalescing of belief. Research that has emerged from empiricism, whether qualitative or otherwise, still relies on this dictum.

c.      Furthermore, the way that we go about doing research predetermines what we are able to see. Following the conventions of experimental work, if multiple people are able to see it, then it becomes fact.

IV.              Facts (and thus truth) are bound entirely to the society or culture in which they are produced. If there is a culture—qualitative studies—that sees its own work as truth, then it is just as valid for that population as experiment results are to scientific communities. Therefore, qualitative work cannot be fiction; if it is observed and felt as true within a community then it is just as true as any other methodology.

Qual needs quant observations to be useful; qual cannot get us to places, make discoveries; qual is better for social justice, shouldn’t be political;

How can conflict lead to good?; how is the work not narcissistic?; studies the plight of others;

We acknowledged narcissism; what truly is the rigor of qualitative work?

Just because we believe something to be true does not make it material; we can miss data and facts because of our own failures;

-      

  What is truly profitable?

-        Rigor exists in the social processes of peer review

-        What is true?

Final Statement on Qualitative Research

Final Statement on Qualitative Methods

               If I have figured anything out this semester, it is that qualitative methods are an iterative process constrained within certain professional expectations. Theoretically, they respond to the problems posed by traditional scientific inquiry, notably through acknowledging the role and position of the researcher. While metric empiricism (and other areas such as critical methods) may attempt to make the researcher invisible, qualitative methods take on the researcher as instrument. This is an important conceptual move, and it is related to where we believe truth or knowledge is located. In order to believe in the absent researcher of metric empiricism, you have to ascribe to the notion that truth is outside of the humans that desire it. It is something that can be reached as long as we find more perfect tools. For the qualitative researcher, the truth resides at the point that the self converges with the subject. It is truth that is contingent on the researcher’s ability to recognize it. Because this process is never simple or straightforward, the researcher must be able to constantly attune their process and methodology.

               It seems that one of the underlying assumptions in qualitative research is that the researcher should be given a degree of trust by those evaluating their work. Because there are not strict guidelines for doing qualitative research—no p-values for interview techniques—the researcher and their results are judged for qualities like coherence and resonance. This is not to say that it is easy to become accepted as a qualitative researcher. Scholars are expected to have certain standards of practice, and they are constrained by expectations placed on them by their academic institutions. This is why it is often difficult to do significant qualitative work early in one’s career: doing a true ethnography takes far too long, and qualitative work is simply not as frequently published as other types of work. This does not mean that it is not worthwhile. Qualitative work can access types of knowledge that cannot begin to be found through metric empiricism, particularly regarding cultural and relational information.

               Judging whether qualitative work is good is always going to be a difficult venture. Because the qualitative researcher is their own tool, it is exceedingly difficult to get outside of oneself to judge the work done. For this reason, having an auditor or colleague to provide feedback can be exceptionally valuable. For myself, I think that the way to define good work is in looking at its ability to help the site or culture that it studies. Attempting to judge whether a work is true is folly; the best you can do is to critique its methods from a third-party point of view. Instead, it may be more useful to define the merit of a work on the basis of what it can do. If the work can provide new understandings of a group or culture, then it is good; if it can help that group or culture become better regarded or gain validity, then it is very good. While I would not argue that all qualitative work needs to be prescriptive, it is hard to imagine a useful study that does not at least implicitly suggest a new course of action. In the realm of qualitative research, truth is always situated within the researcher, and while it will admittedly never produce pure, objective truths, qualitative research can benefit both scholarship and the outside world significantly.

Anderson's Media Research Methods, Ch. 2 - 6

Anderson Ch. 2

In studying the media, various entities can be understood or put into categories based on their properties, processes, consequences, and character. Properties can be studied through basic data collection (surveys, statistics) or immersive engagement (close reading, participant observation). Studying processes requires either sequential measurement methodologies or longer-form interpretive work (protocol analysis, interviews). Consequence is studied in a way that attempts to establish cause and effect, and this can be done through experimentation or participant observation. For character, populations need to be studied, and so surveys, rhetorical criticism, and cultural studies can work to answer questions.

Anderson Ch. 3

Methodology should be public, evidence based, and rule directed, and the studies that result should generate public knowledge. Public knowledge is not necessarily true, but it has passed enough standards not to be deemed false. Methodologies are developed in response to theories; without theory, there is no way to create a systematized method.

It is easier to find problems if you keep current with the discipline’s research. This should be done on a global scale, not limiting it to one’s home country. After doing preliminary research, the problem can be refined to express its domain and components. Methods can come at the problem from deductive (general sample to prove a point/theory) or inductive (single case generalized).

When writing up research, there should be a literature review (shows where in the literature there is material missing) and a problem statement (What is/How does/Why does/What good is?). The literature review should essentially point to the problem statement, showing why it is necessary to answer it.

Anderson Ch. 4

After establishing the problem statement, the researcher must move on to method. Empirical methods use the observation of real practice/culture/material in order to build arguments. It can be categorized as either descriptive, field/life-world, or laboratory.

Metric empiricism is concerned with the measurement and observation of variables. It can be accomplished through observation, survey methods, and experimental methods. In some cases, they can work in tandem with other types of research. Interpretive empiricism is aimed at the study of human action, and it includes reconnaissant observation (short-term), participant observation (long term), critical ethnography, and performance ethnography.

There are certain methods that blur the distinction between metric and interpretive empiricism, including textual analysis, discourse analysis, cultural-critical analysis, and dialogic analysis. These are different from mixed methods, which include multiple methodologies from both metric and interpretive methods.

Anderson Ch. 5

Data must be accompanied with an argument because, otherwise, it is largely useless. Before data can be used, the researcher must implicitly make several assumptions, including what constitutes the media/our text and the nature of the audience/public. We also make assumptions about culture (where and how it is constituted), the way in which individuals relate to society and society to culture, and the role or existence of agency.

Once assumptions are taken into account, a theory must be chosen. The major categories of theory are cognitivism (behavior is dictated from within the individual), social action (behavior is influenced from outside forces), psychoanalytical-semiotic (understanding, meaning, and discursive methods), and critical issue theories (Marxism, feminism, race studies). Each area of theory can be addressed to the psychological, sociological, or cultural level, and furthermore, they can target topics falling into media, content, message, audience, or performance. These theories fall into major epistemic categories as well, including Cartesianism, modernism, and postmodernism.

Depending on whether you are using metric or interpretive methods, the appropriate engagement, evidence, claim, and warrants for trustworthiness are going to differ. In metric work, evidence is characterized by measurable observations of variable manipulation. Trustworthiness is phrased in measurements of reliability, precision, accuracy, and validity.

For interpretive work, evidence is based on the researcher’s coherent and resonant narrative. Their ability to do so will be based on their degree of observation and participation in the studied population. They must be able to link warrants to all of their claims, demonstrating why their evidence is sufficient for the proposition. Trustworthiness for interpretive scholars comes out of coherence, resonance, and vraisemblance (the recognition of the narrative as plausible).

Anderson Ch. 6

Once researchers have research questions, they need to be able to translate their work into hypotheses. For each type of question (What? How? Why? So what?) there are appropriate forms of response. Hypotheses usually appear in metric work, using the theoretical constructs appropriate for the measures and methods of the study. They are not nearly as common in interpretive work.

It is a good idea to create research questions that are anchored both in the real world and the academic, theoretical world. This helps establish warrants for the research. Community-based research is one way to get at both types of problems.

All research work that deals with subjects rather than solely texts should anticipate working with the IRB. The board assesses whether the work is competent scholarship (whether they can really find out what the study sets out to find). They also are concerned with informed consent of participants.

Hammersly & Atkinson's Ethnography, Ch. 1 - 10

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 1

Positivism includes the assumptions that research should follow experimental guidelines, it should produce universal or statistical laws, and all knowledge is rooted in observation.

Naturalism refers to the belief that knowledge comes from the study of the social world in its natural state—without researcher interference.

Both positivism and naturalism lack reflexivity; they rely on situated observation but do not acknowledge the role of the researcher. In ethnography, reflexivity is the basis of knowledge.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 2

In ethnography, researchers usually enter with some degree of foreshadowed problems, but they need to be careful not to let their ideas of problems define what they observe in the field. Furthermore, entering the field in hopes of testing a particular theory can be problematic for the same reason. As the researcher spends time in the field, they will most likely change or refine their research questions, being sure to pursue what is already there, not what they are trying to see. Part of this work can be described as either moving from the formal to substantive (theory -> observation) or substantive to formal/generic (observation -> theory/generalization).

The setting of the research also plays a large role in deciding the research question. It is a good idea to check out places being considered for an ethnography before choosing settings. After all, there are usually many settings to choose from to address the kinds of questions that you want to address. Ethnographers do not, technically, study settings—their work is in studying the populations in the settings. It is impossible to account for everything within the setting.

Sampling in ethnography refers to the choice of cases and cases within cases in a study. Sampling should aim to be representative of the culture studied. The act of sampling is the implicit choice of what is and is not relevant to the topic studied. Sampling can be decided on the basis of time (when to sample), people (who to sample), and context (where to sample).

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 3

Access is a major issue that ethnographers have to deal with. It can involve having to create or use interpersonal relationships with people of power in order to be able to visit or observe certain sites. Even the act of negotiating access can teach the ethnographer a great deal about the culture. Access also brings up issues of ethics (who can grant access isn’t always who ought to grant access) and behavior (just because you are present does not make you a welcome part of the scene).

The people who have the power to let you into a particular setting or scene are known as gatekeepers. They can have formal (clearance) or informal (integral member of culture) roles that give them this power. Sometimes gatekeepers are not the sole individuals needed to gain access to a site. They can be constrained by other individuals, rules, or laws.

When researchers cannot gain access to a field through gatekeepers, it is sometimes possible to do covert research in which the study is not announced to anyone. This can be a constraint on the research, limiting the kinds of data collection you can do. It is also a significant ethical issue.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 4

For most participants, the ethnographer will initially be treated with suspicion, but this will dissipate as contact increases. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes participants misjudge the intentions of the ethnographer or assume that they are ignorant of the practices of the culture. As a result, the researcher has to engage in impression management by doing things like dressing like the people studied. Expertise and specialist knowledge can be useful in structuring relationships with participants in the field. Researchers must also decide on what level of self-disclosure is appropriate and whether or not they are trading friendship for data.

Researchers should be aware of their unmanageable characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.) that can have effects on how they relate to people in the field. Women can have trouble gaining access to certain areas (either because of actual rules or just established norms), and men can have trouble gaining access to settings and situations usually reserved for women. By the same token, these characteristics can make it easier to gain access to those areas that privilege such characteristics.

The early stages of research often involve learning the basic competencies for participating in the culture. During this time, the researcher is often granted the same grace as any new member of a culture—“acceptable incompetence.” This leads to one of the problems of studying a culture that you are already a part of—you cannot hold a novice position, and thus you miss all of the knowledge learned about the status of being a novice.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 5

Because the ‘objects’ that ethnographers study are actually ‘subjects,’ collecting accounts becomes a hugely important part of research. Accounts can be both unsolicited and solicited. The former is generally thought to be more natural or more purposeful, which could be considered a naturalist perspective. We cannot be too heavily concerned with the influence of the researcher asking for accounts because there is no way to ever know if the data is compromised, including unsolicited accounts.

The act of choosing who to interview can have several effects on the research. Simply choosing those that are interesting to the researcher can be, in some ways, biased. Using a gatekeeper to select the respondents gives them the power to direct the results. Allowing the participants to self-select guarantees that the only perspectives heard are those that would want to be heard. The interview itself can be seen as a new site of participation—a “resource rather than a problem.”

Interviews are structured both by the ethnographer and the respondent. Using non-directive interviews requires the researcher to be an active listener, following up on important or interesting details to make the interview worthwhile.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 6

It is important to pay attention to documents, physical objects, and various modes of communication. They can provide a source of information that does not come out in interviews or participation about the setting and context of the observation. They can also be a starting point for analytic ideas. Documents can be either solicited or unsolicited. The former can take the form of diaries or written accounts.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 7

Researcher should try to record as much as they can. Memory is faulty, and it should not be the basis for analysis. Recording anything means that the researcher is choosing not to record something at the same time. It is selective, and something will always be left out. This alone is not reason to abandon recording data. This means that there will also always be interpretation, because recording cannot capture every bit of meaning attached to anything. Choosing to record can also have effects on the participants, and we need to account for this in our interpretations.

Ethnographers should use a reflexive eye when considering recorded data. Recorded data can be useful, not just for capturing specific data, but for use in determining what is usual or unusual in the field or for testing out conceptual links. The recordings can also provide information about the researcher and how the participants react to the researcher.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 8

Data analysis occurs at every stage of ethnographic work. However, there are no guaranteed ways of doing data analysis that will make an ethnography successful. Using data to theorize should be an iterative process, emerging as analysis occurs.

Ethnography work can be largely descriptive, using techniques such as making the strange familiar/making the familiar strange. It can also attempt to explain or create theoretical models. In analysis, ethnographers should search for concepts or theories that help make sense of the cases in the data. One way of analyzing unstructured data can be to use theoretical concepts as categories and to begin sorting data into those categories. As this work continues, the researcher can find data that calls for new categories or that strikes interesting comparisons with existing categories. This can also lead to the establishment of relationships between constructs.

Other systems for working with data can be creating conceptual maps, working up grounded theory, and creating typologies. It is important to find concrete indicators within the data that link to the concepts you are using to theorize. The links can take the form of social context, time, or personnel (who does/says what). When finished, the researcher should seek respondent validation. The conclusions should seem correct/intuitive to those within the population studied.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 9

Ethnography is produced through writing, and the production is just as much writing as it is the data collection. Depending on how the ethnography is written up, it will emphasize different facets of the study. The particular theories or concepts used in the ethnography will dictate what should be focused on. The ethnographer generally writes as a storyteller; because experience is data, the experience must somehow be conveyed. The writing will be read by an audience, and so the narrative must be compelling (or at least readable).

Writing up an ethnography can take either thematic or chronological arrangements. The former is useful for explaining constructs that are ordered in term of importance. The researcher should be careful when using metaphor and synecdoche. While they shouldn’t be eliminated, they can be used in ways that mislead or over-simplify. They should also consider the role of narrative, irony, and topos. When appropriate, or when writing for a digital form, the ethnographer can include extra data such as photos or recordings, though doing so may raise certain ethical issues.

Hammersly & Atkinson Ch. 10

There are many issues that ethnographers have to make ethical choices about. These can include informed consent (how/to what degree does the ethnographer attain consent from participants?), privacy (how is privacy guaranteed and where is it expected?), harm (does the ethnographer do any harm either in their participation or publishing of information?), exploitation (to what degree is the ethnographic work exploiting a community, and can the ethnographer do anything to give back?), and consequences for future research (does the ethnographer’s work preclude further studies?).

Class Notes

Qualitative Research

12/3/2013

If a published article does not have an effect on the lives of those you’re studying, it probably isn’t worth doing.

The self is the individual in action; the self became necessary when social science moved away from methodological individualism. What we observe of people is a choice of presentation/performance. We cannot judge or assume that any presentation is the actual self. The cultural encoding of a presentation are largely visible, and it can be manipulated. Postmodernism suggests that the self is always incomplete which leads to desire and resistance. Every expression denies any other expression.

Social theory theorizes relationships, which are a fundamental unit of social life and thus an object of study. Both individuals within a relationship have rights and obligations. Action can be seen as a semiotic system. Performance is within lines of action, and it is characterized by significance, intention of the performer/performance, competence, modality, instrumentality, and effectiveness. We observe performances, and our field notes should begin to translate what the performances are (composed of individual actions).

Relational forms can take several shapes. Intimate relationships are one on one; small numbers of people with other small numbers are cross-membership relationships, and hierarchical relationships refer to the organizational structures that relate single individuals to multiple individuals. Groups include memberships, coalitions, and cliques (the latter two exist within memberships). Within a membership, there will be relational complexity. These are understood at both local and cultural levels.

It is our challenge to figure out the cultural elements in a relationship, identifying them as different from the local elements of the relationship. We need to identify the cultural obligations within relationships, and we can do this by viewing multiple instances of relationships within a culture. Every relationship has subject positions, obligations, and cultural elements.  Action can be semiotic, epistemic, aesthetic (how is it done well?), and social; we should look for the intentionality of the relationship (what do the members of the relationship intend for the relationship to be?). The terms of obligation can be ethical, economic, political, and social. We have to be able to recognize incompetence, and intentionality doesn’t make up for it.

When we analyze at the local level, we can focus on local agents (who have attached others), local practices, and local requirements of status and performance (negotiations). At the local level, we can observe performed relationships, individuals with identity, subjectivity, agency (prevents cultural performance from becoming static, freedom), and agentry (being the agent of/for something larger than yourself, being the cause of a performance or behavior), and acting agents, which are local enactors with relational others. The acting agents performs through implication, complicity (not the same as culpability), invocation, and evocation.

Enactment is the actualized local routines of the relationship. It entails performance, strategies and tactics, competence, modality, instrumentality, and effectiveness. The routine is the sign of what is being done, enactment is the actualized routine, and performance is the attempt to accomplish the routine. Local relationships also have negotiated criteria of the relationship, grace, grants, power and control, expectations, violations and repairs, structurations (the process by which we put into place resources and competencies to make something to happen; we then rehearse and maintain the structure) and sedimentations (repeated structures create sedimentations), shared experiential and communicative history. While we see two people interacting, we interpret subject positions, lines of action, cultural components, and relationships.

When doing ethnography, there are multiple levels of engagement. The lowest of which is the interview. Methodologically, participation and observation are complementary. One cannot do both at the same time. It can range from interview to significant embeddedness. The more familiar something is to you, the harder it is to observe it. Participation must also be consequential for yourself and the group, otherwise it is not significant. Observation moves through three major phrases, starting with perceptual immersion and careful attention, going through interspersing the significance for the members of what was seen/heard, and finally creating the extended record of what happened. We should use member check throughout, not necessarily for agreement, but for getting descriptions from group members.

For actually doing an ethnography, you need to identify the scene and participants. This is followed by evaluation of research potential, hanging around, gaining access, learning the ropes, strategizing participation, and producing observation.  There are significant ethical issues in ethnography. These include claims of translation and representation, constitution and creation, reflexivity and disguised self-interest, the inherent exploitation, issues of informed consent, risk to self, unintended consequences, and real harm.

We must ask ourselves what constitutes good work. How do we know that we have done good work? How is it demonstrated? What disciplines our self-interest? What is the balance between observation and participation as well as ingenuity and systematicity? How do we manage the intentionality of experience, narrative, the critical impulse, and rhetorical force? What is the role of the other? What are the markers of trustworthiness? What is the value of the work?

Class Notes

Qualitative Methods

11.26.2013

We need to get the PowerPoint for the ethnography lecture and be prepared to interrogate during the presentation.

Hammersly and Atkinson Presentation

In discussing ethics, Hammersly and Atkinson note the differences between procedural ethics (IRB) and ethics in practice. They also write about microethics, which are the ethics for everyday choices rather than ethics that address big issues. When we have issues arise, they are referred to as ethically important moments.

One of the ways to deal with certain admissions (child abuse, sexual abuse) is to make a statement of what you heard and what the consequences of that statement are, asking if they really meant to say what they did. Our choices in responding to this are reflective of our paradigms. We have to be reflexive, particularly when reporting our research.

Ethnography

Hammersly and Atkinson use a very positivistic perspective in describing ethnography, asserting that you can make true or veritable statements.

Traditionally, ethnography was the creation of guides to other cultures. This was heavily linked to colonization and the exoticizing of non-Western populations. After WWII, the interpretive turn appears in social science, which starts integrating narrative, phenomenology, existentialism, social construction, and social action theory. This shift suggests a move from us understanding them to us understanding us. We use public texts to make claims that we know about social life. At present, we have participant observation, auto-ethnography, and long-form interviews.

When deciding whether something works as an ethnographic method, we must ask about certain aspects of the work. There must be an explanatory target—there must be enough there to constitute a true ethnography. The method needs to be connected to the target using warrants, rules of evidence, and conventions of practice (calendars, recording, participation, and reflexivity). There must also be certain recognized practices, such as participant observation/member knowledge, removed observation/recordings, protocol analysis (for activities that are not particularly visual), and interviews. Only objectivist measurement and statistics are excluded as an ethnographic practice.

Social theory is what separates ethnography from the other social sciences; it theorizes the self and social relationships. This is different than what we see in psychology, which privileges methodological individualism, finding all answers within the individual. Social theory is interested in the self, which is what is produced as an expression of identity (who we want to be) and subjectivity (who we are forced to be) in performance. The self is also incomplete. Cultural memberships move individuals into congregations, and the ethnographer is interested in finding their set of understandings (local social reality). We have ways of being in the world, and these are naturalized practices beyond our control (micro-expressions). We should also pay attention to durable relationships and memberships. The self is encoded in subjectivity, located in relationships, apparent through performance, and is an acting agent. The agent is always within a domain, situated within implications and understandings, and is in an improvisational performance. These all occur within cultural domains, which include disciplines (systems of practical training), apparatuses (resources and practices of social structurations), economies (systems of valuation appropriate to the subject position and performance), and hegemonies (cultural process of complicity, implication, invocation, and evocation). Invocation involves noting your own position/self, and evocation is the same done by someone else. We can use disciplines, apparatuses, economies, and hegemonies as aspects of culture to investigate in ethnography. The incomplete self desires completion and finds it within the other, creating both desire and resistance. This means that the completion of the self in the other breeds resistance because any completion occludes becoming anything else. We resist the process of becoming.

In social theory, the relationship is the fundamental unit of social life and it is the object of study. Relationships are always between two individuals in subject positions, which are invariable culturally coded components of the self that have rights and obligations of being. We usually will highlight the rights of specific subject positions and ignore the obligations (at least for those subject positions we like or aspire to). The relationship also allows for control.

The way that social theory treats action is through seeing it as a semiotic system of performance, on the same level as language. All actions are culturally encoded, and they include behaviors and acts, which form routines, rules of enactment, and rules of association.

Outside Reading: Leander and McKim's Tracing the Everyday 'Sitings' of Adolescents on the Internet

Kevin Leander and Kelly McKim’s Tracing the Everyday ‘Sitings’ of Adolescents on the Internet: a strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces

Leander and McKim’s article is primarily concerned with how to integrate the online realm with traditional participant observation. Their particular population, adolescents, spend time interacting in the physical world as well as the virtual one, and so Leander and McKim are driven to follow their participants.

This article brings up a situation that seems to go unaddressed in many descriptions of internet ethnographies: studying participants both online and off. A great deal of the information on internet ethnography (at least that I’ve found) focuses on internet-only communities, and an important part of that work is in defining what is relevant to participant identities. With an online-only community, participants’ offline identities can be seen as largely irrelevant. In Leander and McKim’s situation, the participants are followed online, which means that it is important to tie both on- and offline identities together, fitting together the online participation with the everyday life, like two puzzle pieces.

The authors problematize a few other factors of online participant observation. They acknowledge the problem posed by ‘lurkers’—the unseen readers of websites who do not post or interact. If an ethnographer needs to be fully aware of their environment, how do they account for those who cannot be seen? Leander and McKim also bring up the issue of the extent to which a researcher can participate in online activities, noting that simply lurking is not fully engaging, but making oneself known as an ethnographer can hinder or otherwise influence the behavior of the participants. It seems that this dynamic would be present anyway, online or offline.

Leander and McKim suggest reconceptualizing the methodology of connective ethnography (connecting the online and offline worlds) through Latour’s idea of flow as presented in Actor Network Theory. Though this suggestion seems intuitively correct (to observe a participant’s behavior flow from activity to activity and the malleability of their identity and cultural practices at each site), it does not seem to add anything that has not been done or understood already by an experienced ethnographer.

The authors conclude the article by listing different things for ethnographers to observe in online behavior. Looking through the list (flow/place-making, paths, metonyms, metaphors, and textual construction of space and self), I remain unconvinced that there is anything particularly unique about doing ethnography online. Leander and McKim make a good argument for why it ought to be done, particularly in conjunction with traditional participant observation, but their recommendations for methodology seem to be nothing new.