notes on the internet as research context

Chapter 21
The Internet as research context
by Annette N. Markham
NOTES

The chapter challenges the idea of perception as it is merged with the cyber world or virtual world.

-the researcher approached her study as an ethnographer and went to ‘live’ with her subjects in the online world

-had to interpret text from the interviews done…

-viewed the internet as “…a multiplicity of cultural phenomena not limited to either a monolithic entity or a universal set of experiences” p. 330 as well as, “I view the Internet as an umbrella term for those social spaces constituted and mediated through computer-mediated interactions. As such, the Internet can be seen as a place or a research context.” P. 330

-author comments on how using the internet in research causes the researcher to adjust their perspective,

“In my own experience, the absence of the body does not make the interaction less real, or the ‘knowing of other’ impossible, but it forces an adjustment of perspective; I must be keenly aware of my preconceptions” p. 331

-while conducting research on the net, the researcher can observe behaviour in a less obtrusive way (p. 332)…
“the researcher can lurk and not be noticed. Participant observation is also easier, in that joining groups is not difficult” p. 332
-the author notes that ethical considerations must be balanced in this type of research

Social spaces on the Internet… “These spaces of interaction can draw on or transcend traditional ways of being with others, reify traditional or create new stereotypes, democratize or marginalize. These spaces, like the humans constituting and occupying them, are like any social space we see and study in physical environments; I argue that the primary distinctiveness of the Internet lies in the capacity for anonymity and the unique way this technology reconfigures time and space” p. 333



Internet as a way of being (p. 333)
-author states, “there are those users who embodied connection to the technology is powerfully evident, such as those who broadcast daily activities as public display via webcams…we can create and destroy our various identities and selves at will in cyberspace; our identities can be perceived as having continuous malleability and transformative potential.” P. 333

About Online Interviewing-when the visual element is removed from communication and the individual has to rely on text only, language and perception are joined and this takes a great deal of patience, listening and constant interpretation. P. 334

Interpretation-

The author talks about how she does not know her subjects outside of their ‘online’ personas…however, does this make the person any less real? As well, can the researcher ever ignore his/her judgments about subjects based on how the subject presents him/herself?

“The interpretive lens is not separable from the researcher’s frame of reference and history, but researchers often deemphasize or totally ignore this limitation under the protective guise of if scientific tradition” p. 340

“The methodological dilemma is to be sensitive to the context, to figure out what the most suitable interpretive path is, and to remain epistemologically consistent. Of course, in my own experience, this is easier said than done…” p. 340

“Embodiment dysfunction: When we rely on our embodied sensibilities of knowing, we are not necessarily getting a better or more ‘accurate’ picture of the subjects of our studies; we may be simply reflecting our own comfort zones of research.” P. 341

“In the end, however, our goal as qualitative researchers remains; we strive to understand other in context, analyze some of what it means, and, when we think we know something, present this knowledge to colleagues.” P. 343

“…Internet contexts prompt us to reconsider the foundations of our methods and compel us to assess the extent to which our methods are measuring what we think they are, or getting at what we have always assumed they did.” P. 343