Especially noteworthy is Hine's description of the Internet as having "many different social meanings" (5). Web 2.0 is alternately dubbed "social media." The collaborative nature of the Internet is built into its name. We define our Internet usage by how various online tools connect people over spatial and temporal boundaries (Instant Messenger, Youtube, Email, Facebook.....). A still-contentious issue is whether the Internet has altered the nature of social interactions, or vice versa. Another things I'm curious about, and which Hine also touches on, is what constitutes a 'field' to perform virtual ethnography. Does it have to be a physical space, like an Internet cafe or a library, or even an average Canadian household? Can Facebook be considered a field? If the ethnographer were to set up a Facebook account and observe his/her 'friends' interactions on Facebook, does his/her personal account satisfy the requirements of a clearly-defined 'field'?
I'll just stop rambling for now. Till next week...
What about when the field is illusory? When the participants are ghosts? Judith Donath, at the MIT Media Lab, did research on identity and deception in virtual worlds, in the late 90s, that followed up nicely on Sherry Turkle's earlier work on identity in the (at the time) new and expanding internet. To this day, I haven't come across anyone, other than Donath, looking at the meaning of deception, anonymity, and cloaking in this context. I think this is especially relevant to Lana's question, as these subjects heavily influence where a "field" for research can be situated.
ReplyDelete