Internet Inquiry: Conversations About Method

Books

Edited by: Annette N. Markham & Nancy K. Baym

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Introduction: Making Smart Choices on Shifting Ground

    Nancy K.Baym and Annette N.Markham

    Every generation believes it is singular in its experience of rapid and monumental social and technological changes. Ours is no exception. Early in the 21st century, “The Internet” marks our epochal particularity. The internet1—with all its capacities, interfaces, uses, and underlying technologies—both epitomizes and enables a seemingly constant barrage of reality-altering, globe-shifting changes. Far from slowing down, the barrage seems to continuously accelerate. Despite studying internet-related social phenomena since the early 1990s, the two of us regularly see new capacities and uses that shift how people make sense of and live their everyday lives and that raise profound challenges for researchers seeking to make sense of the internet's places and roles in this new world.

    As qualitative researchers of media-saturated phenomena, we notice how the internet brings into sharp relief previously assumed and invisible epistemologies and practices of inquiry. In fact, challenges of conducting internet research have prompted its researchers to confront, head-on, numerous questions that lurk less visibly in traditional research contexts. Consequently, internet researchers have been compelled to reconsider basic principles and practices of qualitative inquiry, with important critiques of a priori methodological certainties. This theme comprises a strong thread throughout the book, discussed in different ways by the authors of this collection.

    The internet changes the way we understand and conduct qualitative inquiry. This point is not new to the contributors to this collection, yet its resonance across this volume demonstrates its power. This came as somewhat of a revelation to us as editors. Qualitative scholars that we are, we studied the contributions once we had them in hand, individually and as a group, searching for common themes and patterns of meaning. What a surprise for us to discover that, although the main focus of the book is ostensibly the internet, the most important points contribute to nuanced and new understandings of qualitative inquiry in general.

    Why did we put together this collection? Both of us finished our PhDs in Communication Departments in the early 1990s with dissertations that were among the first to focus on the internet as a site for and object of qualitative research. We were naïve enough to think that it would be relatively straightforward to transfer research strategies developed for studying face-to-face contexts to life online. Since those early years, we've witnessed and contributed to critical analyses of this assumption. We've welcomed a small flurry of methodological books on internet research and critical reflections on qualitative internet research and ethnography (well represented by Hall, 2004; Hine, 2005a; Johns, Chen, & Jones, 1999; and Mann & Stewart, 2000). This book contributes to and extends that line of research reflexivity. We aim to make many of the challenges and issues in conducting qualitative internet inquiry explicit so that readers can see how others have worked through them and can thereby heighten their own sensitivity to those concerns.

    Qualitative approaches are open ended; the foundational principles of this epistemological category encourage practitioners to engage in dialogue that influences the structure of practice in the field: dialogue about critical decision points, ethical quandaries, and the uniqueness of the internet as a mediating factor in research (or the research site itself). Over the years, we found that our research approaches grew more sophisticated as we engaged in informal conversations with others who had studied similar contexts with different perspectives, or the inverse, with those who studied different contexts with similar perspectives. However, these discussions do not frequently appear in finished research reports or methods textbooks.

    Research reports are carefully edited retrospectives, selected among different story lines and options, depending on one's audience and goals. Within these reports, research designs are generally presented as a series of logical and chronologically ordered steps. Seasoned scholars know there's a complex backstage story line and have experienced such complexities themselves. But for novice scholars, it is easy to imagine that the researcher's route was successfully mapped out in advance and that interpretive findings simply emerged from the ground or fell conveniently into the path. Qualitative research requires a tolerance for chaos, ambiguity, and inductive thinking, yet its written accomplishments—particularly those published in chapters and articles rather than monographs—rarely display the researchers' inductive pathways or the decisions that led them down those routes.

    This book focuses on those decision-making processes in qualitative research that so often remain private. For this volume, we gathered some of the most accomplished qualitative internet researchers from varied intellectual traditions and asked them to explain how they have negotiated these challenges in their research practices, to make explicit the theoretical frameworks they have used to make decisions, and to offer advice to guide researchers as they confront these questions themselves.

    This collection also addresses the broader challenges associated with doing research in this era of media-saturated and ever-shifting sociocultural contexts. Not only are the objects of our research shifting, so too are traditional academic disciplines, which is particularly evident in the interdisciplinary characteristics of internet-related research. The authors in this collection have found themselves grappling with a multiplicity of concerns within and outside their home disciplines. Their success relies on their ability to remain grounded as the research contexts, technologies, and the very nature of their social worlds seem to change, converge, collide, or collapse. We review some of the challenges in this era of research in this introduction, noting that even in these amorphous contexts, quality and rigor emerge from our abilities to comprehend and heed the lessons learned by previous generations of researchers while understanding the need for flexible adaptation, a process of reconsideration without reinvention.

    Sociocultural Contexts in a Media-Saturated World

    Sociologists such as Bauman (2000), Sennett (1974), Appadurai (1996), and Giddens (1990) are among those who have described major transformations in the social order in the wake of increasingly global and capitalistic infrastructures and flows. The internet is directly implicated in at least four major transformations of our epoch: (1) media convergence, (2) mediated identities, (3) redefinitions of social boundaries, and (4) the transcendence of geographical boundaries. Each of these intertwined cultural contexts inevitably affects the identification of research objects, engagement with research fields, and design and conduct of qualitative inquiry of contemporary social life.

    Media are rapidly converging with one another. The (seemingly) neat worlds of face-to-face embodied conversation, public speaking, landline telephones, radio, television, and film have all but collapsed into a tangled web of video clips sent over mobile phones, music played over computers, refrigerators that suggest recipes on built-in computer screens, and sites like YouTube where clips of a broadcast television show sit on the same platform alongside home-made videos. Media are integral to the full range of human social practices. They are appropriated for the everyday conduct of social, occupational, and civic life in ways that bring these fields into new forms of convergence across time and space. Qualitative researchers must grapple more than ever with the problem of how to identify one phenomenon when convergence intertwines them all together. Although the authors advocate throughout this book that quality in research design relies on a good fit among question, phenomenon, and method, these choices are complicated by the cacophony of causal relationships in the field.

    The cacophony does not exist simply in the convergence of multiple media and the accompanying swarm of information but also in the shifting subjects of our inquiry. The contemporary self, which used to seem fairly reliably embedded in a human body, must now be seen as constructed with and in response to multiple media. Kenneth Gergen (1991) popularized the concept of “the saturated self,” arguing that modern identities are pieced together like quilts from the overwhelming expanses of mediated messages in our environments. As Radhika Gajjala and many of the authors note in this volume, our selves are produced through multiple media.

    The sociological subject is powerful, shifting, and, in terms of qualitative research design, confusing. Our research models do not fit the multiphrenic subject very well. For example, when conceptualizing, defining, protecting, interviewing, or observing the subject of inquiry, tradition dictates that the research participant have demographically verifiable characteristics. We are taught as a basic rule of thumb in methods courses to identify and categorize, even if only to protect the rights of our participants, but also to use these categories to help us build our interpretive frameworks. In internet research, this rule of thumb about categorizing has tended to result in researchers juxtaposing what happens online with what happens face-to-face, or to search for the real or authentic. Carried out for various reasons, this research practice simply doesn't fit anymore the multiphrenic or saturated subject. Yet as Shani Orgad discusses in Chapter 2, the question of how to treat data collected from online discussion forums and interviews relative to that collected in physically co-present interviews raises issues that go to the heart of how core concepts such as “authentic” or “trustworthy” are to be understood when experience and identity are saturated by so many communication media.

    The internet also highlights the contemporary disruption of social boundaries, as exemplified by the shifting nature of private and public, concepts that were never as simple as they might have appeared. On the internet's open forums people share their medication regimes, heartaches, and sexual preferences. Genres such as reality television, talk shows, and internet video sharing thrive on the willingness of private citizens to bare the most personal and private elements of their lives to mass audiences. As researchers Malin Sveningsson Elm, Elizabeth Buchanan, and Susannah Stern argue in Chapter 3, this inversion of public and private has profound implications for how researchers must approach the ethics of data collection in “public” internet sites, and also for how the very concept of “privacy” is constructed even in domains we thought we understood. In Chapter 4, Lori Kendall, Jenny Sundén, and John Edward Campbell further push us to consider what researchers might be losing when we omit our “private” feelings and desires from our scholarly analyses rather than allowing them into the process and public record.

    Convergence, mediated selves, and shifts in social boundaries are situated within and create contexts in which geographical and temporal boundaries must be reconsidered. When people can have speedy and regular contact across distances using a variety of mediated means for as many purposes as there are conversations, or shared traditionally conceptually geographic and temporal space is less forceful than ever before in bounding our identities, relationships, collaborators, information sources, entertainment, or financial dealings. Instead, the temporal and spatial boundaries influencing social interaction and structures are shifting, ad hoc. For the qualitative researcher, trained in methods of studying a physically grounded site, this raises questions of how to frame the boundaries of a study when any practice is bounded in many ways through space and time, as Christine Hine, Lori Kendall, and danah boyd examine in Chapter 1.

    The changes in global communication infrastructures in recent times also shift the traditional grounds and audiences for our research. A researcher's work is liable to be read in contexts it never would have been in years past, which, as the contributors to Chapter 5 (Annette Markham, Elaine Lally, and Ramesh Srinivasan) discuss, creates both methodological and rhetorical challenges in constructing and presenting our work.

    Choices within the Rubric of Qualitative Research

    Anyone who wants to use qualitative methods to study the internet must comprehend and select from a dizzying array of choices, depending on what region and/or discipline he or she is approaching the internet from, what advice is received from friends or mentors, and what books are randomly picked off the shelves to assist in developing the study. While there are models and general rubrics to guide one's choices, qualitative internet research is still novel enough to make those decisions difficult.

    In common definition and traditional application, qualitative methods have been associated with close analysis and interpretation by the researcher, trained in various specific methods of information collection (e.g., interviewing, participant observation in the field, and notation or collection of such things as written texts, transcripts of conversations, documents, and artifacts) and in even more specific methods of data analysis within one's school of thought (e.g., conversation analysis, grounded theory, deconstruction, rhetorical criticism, network analysis, phenomenology, and so forth).

    Each of these methods (and others not mentioned here) of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and writing exists within cultural, historical, and political frameworks that delimit one's activities as a researcher. Each of these procedures has also been deconstructed in the wake of postmodernism. Qualitative approaches look decidedly different from country to country, even within disciplines. Alternately, qualitative approaches seem easily lumped together. Subtle distinctions in epistemological grounding can make a big difference in one's approach, but it may be difficult to comprehend this effect when the labels seem similar. This is particularly challenging for newcomers unfamiliar with the historical evolution of a method or longstanding methodological debates. We cannot answer the question, “What is qualitative method?” but the complexity of the question must be noted. As Hine aptly notes (2005b), the phrase “qualitative method” itself may be inappropriate because it cannot adequately encapsulate the practices said to be housed under its roof.

    Let's face it: Everything appears to be up for grabs in this era of research, internet or no. Studies and study results emerge in different forms and venues, with different standards of quality, based on an unimaginably broad range of perspectives and methods. We are undoubtedly not the only ones to notice this phenomenon, but because our object of research, the internet, both contributes to and is entangled in this shifting ground, we feel the impact.

    The Changing Role of Disciplinarity

    How then do we grapple with the choices? Do we cling to tradition because it has steadier grounding? Or do we continually experiment? People from many disciplines are drawn to study the internet for many reasons. Some want to use the technologies to conduct traditional research within their disciplinary groundings, others to be freed from the shackles of traditional disciplinary practices. Some want to understand something about particular technologies, but have little training in the methods for studying them. Others know a lot about the methods of social research but little about the technologically mediated context they're studying.

    Many are drawn to the internet as a research topic because its self-replenishing novelty always holds out the promise for unique intellectual spaces. Research in this area tends to chase new technologies. Related, more current, or cutting-edge research is often valued more highly than what are seen as its out-of-date, old-fashioned counterparts. New kinds of interactions emerge so rapidly that the opportunities to contribute something original to an area by incorporating the internet into research are endlessly open. But novel research terrain brings with it novel difficulties. It is hard to know how well older theoretical and methodological frameworks can be applied to understand contemporary social formations. Can we still draw on theories that were developed in an earlier epoch to frame our inquiry and explain our findings? How do we apply procedural models to a study when these models do not seem to fit anymore? How can we move beyond documenting the new to saying things of lasting value about phenomena that change so rapidly?

    In the context of this mixed allure and challenge, few people who study the internet are trained by a person, let alone a program, that gave them specialized guidance on how to do it well. Quality in academia is a discipline-specific assessment, and the arbiters tend to be those flagship journals, each of which aligns with editorial divisions of publishing houses that publish our research, host the conferences where we present our work, and provide institutional homes. While most disciplines have awakened to an understanding of the importance of the internet in their fields, most do not have a richly developed core of scholars who agree on methodological approaches or standards. This absence of disciplinary boundaries keeps internet studies both desirable and frustrating.

    Layered atop this, the global nature of the internet exposes many cultural differences in assumptions, approaches, and interpretations, as many of the authors discuss in this volume. This exposure is not a bad thing, in that it forces internet researchers to continually evaluate their own work in light of contrasting perspectives. Internet researchers push the boundaries of disciplinary belonging in ways that exemplify what all academic researchers would do well to problematize.

    Because disciplinary journals, editorial boards, and reviewers may have lacked expertise in internet research (a situation that is changing now, of course), the quality of published qualitative research of the internet varies widely. Although certain scholars can cite hallmark exemplars (as illustrated by the recommended reading authors chose to include in this volume) or name current key journals (such as new media & society, Information Society, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Information Community & Society), these provide interesting illustrations of potential rather than guides for new researchers in the field. This absence of canonical texts indicates a markedly undisciplined field for inquiry and offers much potential for creative research endeavors. Quality must be evaluated at the individual rather than institutional level, a challenge that forces researchers to strive to understand a broad array of theories and methods from multiple disciplines.

    Those who turn to the internet as a new topic of study may find it easy to forget that we are not the first people to live through times of technological, cultural, or disciplinary change. Even those on the cutting edge need to know what remains continuous across these changes and what history has to teach us. If the lack of obvious and singular cultural, methodological, or disciplinary context is taken to mean that there is nothing to be learned from disciplinary traditions or studies of earlier media, the result is liable to be weak work. One of this book's central messages is the importance of historical understanding in making sense of novel research topics. Chasing the new in an academic context is in many ways a lost cause: There is no way to keep ahead of the ever-shifting postmodern subject living in interwoven political, economic, and social contexts that are media saturated. One makes lasting contributions and manages the challenges by grounding research. This, of course, is a complicated goal, not achieved solely by reading the literature in one's own field, but certainly aided by a clear understanding of the tools one is using and a keen reflexivity about the situatedness of the self, one's discipline, and the object and context of research.

    Reconsidering without Reinventing

    What qualitative internet researchers need is thus an exaggerated form of what all qualitative researchers require—a way to navigate the novelty of the contemporary landscape while drawing on and contributing to the accumulated methodological and topical wisdom of relevant pasts. The particular novelty and multiple contextualities of internet research increase the need to be able to articulate and defend the processes of decision making during research. The authors in this collection are all drawn to studying the novel, but they share a commitment to making sense of the new by understanding their research processes' and objects' continuity with the past.

    This book comes out of the belief that credible research is driven by clearly defined questions and adaptability in answering them. As Sally Jackson (1986) aptly reminds us, method is not a recipe for success, but a means of argument. The procedures we learn and teach are not a means of ensuring truth, but of anticipating possible counter-arguments. Procedures are designed in order to raise broader issues, as Stern notes in Chapter 3, and we need to consider those broader issues in making wise methodological choices. The “steps taken” to solve a “problem” constitute method, but these steps are loaded with assumptions and premises before the process even begins. To understand and apply the appropriate method, one must also examine the guiding assumptions. Then, one must match the most appropriate method to the question, retaining consistency among one's ontological, epistemological, and methodological premises.

    The Format of the Book

    The reader will note that unlike most edited collections, each chapter in this book is titled as a question. We developed these questions to provoke explicit consideration of key issues. We narrowed them down to six, which are by no means exhaustive, but which we have found especially salient in conducting, reading, and teaching qualitative internet inquiry:

    • How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects?
    • How can researchers make sense of the issues involved in collecting and interpreting online and offline data?
    • How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative internet research?
    • How do issues of gender and sexuality influence the structures and processes of qualitative internet research?
    • How can qualitative researchers produce work that is meaningful across time, location, and culture?
    • What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research?

    We asked scholars whose work exemplifies how to handle these issues well to explain how they think through these questions, in general and in practice. At the end of each chapter, after the first author has offered his or her essay addressing the question and provided some key reading references, responses are provided by additional authors. The resulting range of perspectives offers conceptual, theoretical, and practical guidance while demonstrating that there are many defensible directions in which any research project could go. Rather than making the decisions that lead to one right answer, research must make strong, context-sensitive choices that lead to insightful answers.

    In the first chapter, sociologist Christine Hine, whose research focuses on the sociology of science and technology, including ethnographic studies of scientific culture, looks at how to define the boundaries of a research project, both its starting and stopping points. Responses are offered by sociologist Lori Kendall, who uses symbolic interactionism and feminist approaches to study information technologies and culture, including online community and identity, and danah boyd, an information studies scholar with a background in computer science, who studies emergent social practices in networked publics.

    In the second chapter, media and communication scholar Shani Orgad, whose research uses constructivist and narrative approaches to explore communicative processes in mediated contexts, offers her analysis of how to grapple with the issue of online versus offline in collecting information and making sense of it in qualitative internet analysis. The respondents are audience/media scholar Maria Bakardjieva, who uses phenomenological sociology to examine how users mobilize and appropriate the internet in a variety of social contexts including the home, educational settings, and online and local communities; and Radhika Gajjala, a feminist, postcolonialist media scholar who studies the intersections of culture and technology.

    In the third chapter, the question of the extent to which privacy or perceived privacy is an issue for qualitative internet researchers is taken on by Malin Sveningsson Elm, a media and communication studies scholar who studies social interaction online, particularly the presentation of self in online communities and relationships. Responses are offered by Elizabeth Buchanan, an information studies and education researcher, who examines ethical practices and regulations associated with information science and internet research from a social constructivist perspective; and Susannah Stern, a mass communications scholar who uses critical methods to study uses and effects of electronic media, with a special interest in children and youth.

    In the fourth chapter, Lori Kendall returns with a provocative analysis of how issues of gender and sexuality influenced structures and processes of qualitative internet research in her work on masculinity in an online discussion group. Responses are offered by Jenny Sundén, a researcher of media technology and communication studies who has studied online embodiment and cyberfeminist politics, and John Edward Campbell, a communications scholar who studies masculinity in gay spaces on the internet.

    In the fifth chapter, Annette Markham considers the question of how to produce work that is meaningful across time and location, given that internet technologies change radically and are used in very different ways across contexts. Elaine Lally, a cultural studies and anthropology scholar who studies information and communication technologies as forms of material culture, and Ramesh Srinivasan, an information scientist conducting research on culture and globalism, respond.

    In the final chapter, Nancy Baym argues that the concept of dialectics can help frame the issue of quality in qualitative internet research. She draws on the chapters included here, her own research experience, and what others have written about standards in qualitative research to offer guidelines on what constitutes quality. Annette Markham responds.

    The result of our collaboration is not a “how-to” guide. It is, rather, an exploration and explanation of vantage points, a project meant to stimulate thinking.

    Cross-Cutting Conclusions

    In closing the introduction to this collection, we want to identify six cross-cutting issues raised by the authors in this collection—issues that are fundamental to all qualitative research, not just internet-related research, and that reverberate throughout all of the essays included here.

    First, research design is always ongoing. Theory and method inform one another so that the study is continuously reframed throughout the research process. Different questions occur at different stages of a research process, and the same questions reappear at different points.

    Second, the constitution of data is the result of a series of decisions at critical junctures in the design and conduct of a study. The endless and jumbled network of links that comprise our research sites and subjects create endless sources of information that could be used as data in a project. We must constantly and thoroughly evaluate what will count as data and how we are distinguishing side issues from key sources of information. Reflexivity may enable us to minimize or at least acknowledge the ways in which our culturally embedded rationalities influence what is eventually labeled “data.”

    Third, ethical treatment of human subjects is inductive and context-sensitive. As almost all the authors in this collection discuss, ethical issues are neither simple nor universal. The context-specific uses of the internet highlight many of the complications associated with determining moral or legal parameters for protecting the participants of research projects. Given the complex ways in which people adapt and appropriate technologies for interaction, researchers must reconsider carefully the frameworks that delimit concepts such as trust, authenticity, privacy, and consent. Although one might wish for clear guidelines, navigating these issues in the contexts of specific projects must be inductive rather than rule driven.

    Fourth, the role of the self in research is a subject for reflexive inquiry. The often ostensibly disembodied internet calls into question the nature and place of the self in research at a level different from the related postmodern questions of the self as part of the research process. The internet highlights the extent to which researchers co-create the fields of study. Our choices, because they occur in contexts that have no standard rules for research design and practice, seem more poignant and meaningful. What decisions are we making to seek consent; what counts as an authentic self-representation? How are we conceptualizing the embodied persons we study? How are we framing our own embodied sensibilities? Do we approach what we are studying as traces left in public spaces or as embodied activities by people situated in rich offline contexts? We must consider how to interpret other people's selves and how to represent ourselves to the people we study, especially when we may not be meeting them in person. The connection of researcher and researched is a phenomenon heightened by the often invisible bodies of the researcher and researched in internet contexts. The researchers in this collection make powerful arguments for embracing the challenge of understanding how we are connected in multiple and complex ways to the contexts we create, study, and report.

    Fifth, research practices are situated. An awareness of our emotional, bodily, institutional, economic, and social situations inevitably has an impact on all the choices we make in the field, including choices about how we approach the field, collect and interpret data, and represent our work. As research contexts and publishing venues become more globally accessible, we become more accountable for taking this situatedness into consideration. Crafting work that speaks to people in other places and future times requires attention to the situated nature of our methods and the products of our inquiry.

    Finally, research requires the ongoing balance of dialectical tensions. The authors in these chapters point to a number of dialectics—messiness vs. neatness, depth vs. breadth, local vs. global—and one could identify others. These dialectics pull researchers in opposing directions, and a step toward either side entails some sacrifice of insights that the other side would offer. Researchers must be able to identify, articulate, and make reasoned comparisons regarding what might be gained and lost with each research option they might follow.

    These six cross-cutting issues relate to any qualitative inquiry and are not internet specific. Yet the particularities of internet contexts highlight these issues as important markers for reflection and attention.

    In sum, although the internet has made more data available to researchers than ever before and created seemingly infinite, alluring research opportunities, the process of conducting qualitative internet research—indeed all qualitative research, and arguably all research—is more complex than ever before. We hope that the insights gathered in the chapters that follow serve as exemplars and sources of advice to help readers manage these challenges with rigor in their own research.

    “Internet” is often spelled with a capital “I.” In keeping with current trends in internet studies, we prefer the lower case “i.” Capitalizing suggests that “internet” is a proper noun and implies either that it is a being, like Nancy or Annette, or that it is a specific place, like Madison or Lawrence. Both metaphors lead to granting the internet agency and power that are better granted to those who develop and use it.

  • Acknowledgments

    First and foremost Nancy wants to thank Annette for her vision and persistence in spearheading this book and for her friendship. She'd also like to thank the students in her graduate seminars in Qualitative Methods at the University of Kansas who helped her think through many of the issues raised in this book; Margaret Seawell for originally taking this book on and Todd Armstrong at SAGE for seeing it through; and last but never least, Rex, Zane, and Eli.

    Annette would like to thank the contributors, whose work inspired the book from the beginning. Without them, this project would not exist. It wouldn't have been finished, either, without the persistent support of her friends within the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR), who have become the stable community in her gypsy life. Among this community, Nancy has been steady and true. She was a fantastic colleague throughout this project, proving that it can be fun to do collaborative work with good friends.

    In addition, many thanks to our colleagues whose keen sensibilities in reading early versions gave strength and shape to this volume: John W. Creswell (University of Nebraska–Lincoln); Norman Denzin (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign); Klaus Bruhn Jensen (University of Copenhagen); Mark D. Johns (Luther College); Steve Jones (University of Illinois, Chicago); and William K. Rawlins (Ohio University).

    References

    Allen, C. (1996). What's wrong with the “Golden Rule”? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace. Information Society, 12, 175–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713856146
    Altork, K. (1995). Walking the fire line: The erotic dimension of the fieldwork experience. In D.Kulick & M.Willson (Eds.), Taboo: Sex, identity, and erotic subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork (pp. 107–139). London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203420379_chapter_4
    Amit, V. (Ed.). (2000a). Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world. London: Routledge.
    Amit, V. (2000b). Introduction: Constructing the field. In V.Amit (Ed.), Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.
    AoIR (Association of Internet Researchers). (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
    Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Atran, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2005, October). The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112(4), 744–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.744
    Bagilhole, B. (2002). Women in non-traditional occupations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230501102
    Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446215616
    Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject. Ethics and Information Technology, 2, 233–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011454606534
    Bakardjieva, M., Feenberg, A., & Goldi, J. (2004). User-centered Internet research: The ethical challenge. In E.Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Bakardjieva, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The Internet in everyday life: Computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user. New Media & Society, 3(1), 67–83.
    Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays, (M.Holquist, Ed.; C.Emerson & M.Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    Balsamo, A. (1990). Rethinking ethnography: A work for the feminist imagination. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 11, 45–57.
    Baron, N. (2003). Why email looks like speech: Proofreading, pedagogy, and public face. In J.Aitchison & D.Lewis (Eds.), New media language (pp. 102–111). London: Routledge.
    Baron, N. S., Squires, L., Tench, S., & Thompson, M. (2005). Tethered or mobile? Use of away messages in instant messaging by American college students. In R.Ling & P.Pedersen (Eds.), Front stage–back stage: Mobile communication and the renegotiation of the social sphere. Retrieved January 28, 2005, from http://www.american.edu/tesol/Grimstad-Baron.pdf
    Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Bauman, Z. (2005). Afterthought: On writing; on writing sociology. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1089–1098). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Baxter, L. A. (2007). Problematizing the problem in communication: A dialogic perspective. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 118–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196847
    Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B. (2007). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
    Baym, N. K. (2000). Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452204710
    Baym, N. K. (2002). Interpersonal life online. In L. A.Lievrouw & S.Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 62–76). London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608245
    Baym, N. K. (2006). Finding the quality in qualitative internet research. In D.Silver & A.Massanari (Eds.), Critical cyberculture studies: Current terrains, future directions (pp. 79–87). New York: New York University Press.
    Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the Internet. Social Epistemology18(2–3), 139–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269172042000249264
    Beaulieu, A. (2005). Sociable hyperlinks. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 183–197). Oxford: Berg.
    Behar, R., & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Bell, D., & Valentine, G. (1995). Introduction: Orientations. In D.Bell & G.Valentine (Eds.), Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities. London: Routledge.
    Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
    Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Binik, Y., Mah, K., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Ethical issues in conducting sex research on the Internet. Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 82–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551971
    Boast, R., Bravo, M., & Srinivasan, R. (2007, October). Return to Babel: Emergent diversity, digital resources, and local knowledge. Information Society, 23(5), 395–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240701575635
    Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Bouthillette, A.-M., Retter, Y., & Ingram, G. B. (Eds.). (1997). Queers in space: Communities, public places, sites of resistance. Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
    Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D.Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning—Youth, identity, and digital media volume. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Branwyn, G. (1994). Compu-sex: Erotica for cybernauts. In M.Dery (Ed.), Flame wars: The discourse of cyberculture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Braziel, J. E., & LeBesco, K. (Eds.). (2001). Bodies out of bounds: Fatness and transgression. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Briggs, C. (1986). Learning how to ask. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    Brin, D. (1998). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Brown, K. M. (1991). Mama Lola. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Bruckman, A. (1997, January 20). MediaMOO Symposium: The ethics of research in virtual communities. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/asb/MediaMOO/ethics-symposium-97.html
    Buchanan, E. (Ed). (2004). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Burawoy, M. (2001). Manufacturing the global. Ethnography, 2(2), 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466138101002002001
    Burawoy, M., et al. (2000). Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
    Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”New York: Routledge.
    Butler, J. (1995). Contingent foundations. In S.Benhabib, J.Butler, D.Cornell, & N.Fraser (Eds.), Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange (thinking gender) (pp. 35–57). London: Routledge.
    Califia, P. (1994). Public sex: The culture of radical sex. Pittsburgh, PA: Cleir Press.
    Callaway, H. (1992). Ethnography and experience: Gender implications in fieldwork and texts. In J.Okely & H.Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography (pp. 29–49). London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203450536_chapter_2
    Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory—The market test. In J.Law & J.Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 181–195). Oxford: Blackwell.
    Campbell, J. E. (2004). Getting it on online: Cyberspace and gay male sexuality and embodied sexuality. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
    Carey, J. W. (2005). Historical pragmatism and the Internet. New Media and Society, 7(4), 443–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444805054107
    Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Cesara, M. (1982). Reflections of a woman anthropologist. New York: Academic Press.
    Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Christians, C. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (
    2nd ed.
    , pp. 133–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Christians, C. G., & Carey, J. W. (1989). The logic and aims of qualitative research. In G.Stempel & B.Westley (Eds.), Research methods in mass communication (
    2nd ed.
    , pp. 354–374). New York: Prentice Hall.
    Clair, R. P. (Ed.). (2003). Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to qualitative methods. Albany: SUNY Press.
    Clarke, A., & Fujimura, J. (Eds.) (1992). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Consalvo, M., & Paasonen, S. (2002). Women & everyday uses of the Internet: Agency & identity. New York: Peter Lang.
    Cooper, G. (2001). Conceptualising social life. In N.Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (
    2nd ed.
    , pp. 1–13). London: Sage.
    Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The lesbian café. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124195024003002
    Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. London: Sage.
    Cunningham, S., & Turner, G. (2006). The media and communications in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
    Dalmiya, V., & Alcoff, L. (1993). Are “old wives’ tales” justified? In E.Potter & L.Alcoff (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 217–244). New York: Routledge.
    Daneback, K. (in press). Love and sexuality on the Internet. Dissertation in progress. Institution for Social Work, Gothenburg University.
    Danet, B. (2001a). Cyberplay: Communicating online. Oxford: Berg.
    Danet, B. (2001b). Studies of cyberplay: Ethical and methodological aspects. Paper prepared for the Ethics Working Committee, Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved January 15, 2002, from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir/ethics/case.html.
    Danet, B., Ruedenberg-Wright, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1997). “HMMM … WHERE's THAT SMOKE COMING FROM?”: Writing, play and performance on Internet relay chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).
    De Laet, M. K., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30, 225–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002
    Denzin, N. (1989). The research act (
    3rd ed.
    ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Denzin, N. (2004). Prologue: Online environments and interpretive social research (pp. 1–12). In M. D.Johns, S. S.Chen, & G. J.Hall (Eds), Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics. New York: Peter Lang Press.
    Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (
    2nd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (
    2nd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (
    3rd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673279810249369
    Dimitrov, V., & Hodge, B. (2002). Social fuzziology: Study of fuzziness of social complexity. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1778-2
    Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2001). Mapping cyberspace. London: Routledge.
    Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In A. M.Smith & P.Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). London: Routledge.
    Döring, N. (2000). Feminist views of cybersex: Victimization, liberation, and empowerment. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 863–884.
    Eichhorn, K. (2001). Sites unseen: Ethnographic research in a textual community. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 565–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390110047075
    Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197
    Enslin, E. (1994). Beyond writing: Feminist practice and the limitations of ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 9(4), 537–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/can.1994.9.4.02a00040
    Escobar, A. (1994). Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the anthropology of cyberculture. Current Anthropology, 35(3), 211–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204266
    Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2003). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. In E. A.Buchanan (Ed.), Virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Featherstone, M., & Venn, C. (2006). Problematizing global knowledge and the New Encyclopaedia Project: An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276406065779
    Feenberg, A., & Bakardjieva, M. (2004). Groupware for community: Between the real and the possible. Paper presented at Public Proofs: Science, Technology and Democracy, Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) & EASST Conference, Paris.
    Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124193022003001
    Forte, M. (2004). Co-construction and field creation: Website development as both an instrument and relationship in action research. In E.Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Forte, M. (2005). Centering the links: Understanding cybernetic patterns of coproduction, circulation and consumption. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 93–106). Oxford: Berg.
    Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction, Vol. I (R.Hurley Trans.). New York: Random House.
    Frankel, M., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet: A report of a workshop. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 1, 2002, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm.
    Gajjala, R. (2004). Cyberselves: Feminist ethnographies of South Asian women. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
    Gajjala, R., Rybas, N., & Altman, M. (2007). Epistemologies of doing: E-merging selves online. Feminist Media Studies, 7(2).
    Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
    Geertz, C. (2000). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
    Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
    Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
    Glennie, P. D., & Thrift, N. J. (1996). Consumers, identities, and consumption spaces in early-modern England. Environment and Planning, A28, 25–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a280025
    Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
    Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Goggin, G. (2004). Virtual nation: The Internet in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales.
    Gonzalez, M. C. (2003). An ethics for postcolonial ethnography. In R. P.Clair (Ed.), Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to qualitative methods (pp. 77–86). Albany: SUNY Press.
    Goode, E. (1999). Sex with informants as deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior, 20, 301–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016396299266416
    Green, N. (1999). Disrupting the field: Virtual reality technologies and “multi-sited” ethnographic methods. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 409–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955344
    Grindstaff, L. (2002). The money shot: Trash, class, and the marking of TV talk shows. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226309088.001.0001
    Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Gross, L. (1991). Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media. In M.Wolf & A.Kielwasser (Eds.), Gay people, sex, and the media. New York: Harrington Park Press.
    Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (
    3rd ed.
    , pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1999). At the border of narrative and ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 561–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124199129023550
    Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Hakken, D. (1999). Cyborgs@cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
    Hamman, R. B. (1996). Cyborgasms: Cybersex amongst multiple-selves and cyborgs in the narrow-bandwidth space of America Online chat rooms. MA thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Essex. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/Cyborgasms_old.html
    Hammersley, M. (1998). Reading ethnographic research (
    2nd ed.
    ). London: Longman.
    Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (
    2nd ed.
    ). London: Routledge.
    Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Haraway, D. (1991a). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
    Haraway, D. (1991b). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
    Haraway, D. (1997a). Modest witness@second millennium: FemaleMan©_meetsOncoMouse™. New York: Routledge.
    Haraway, D. (1997b). The virtual speculum in the new world order. Feminist Review, 55, 22–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fr.1997.3
    Haraway, D. (2000). How like a leaf: An interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. New York: Routledge.
    Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?London: Open University Press.
    Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and “strong objectivity.”Social Research, 59(3), 567–587.
    Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (2002). The Internet in everyday life: An introduction. In B.Wellman & C.Haythornwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 3–41). London: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470774298
    Heath, D., Koch, E., Ley, B. L., & Montoya, M. (1999). Nodes and queries: Linking locations in networked fields of inquiry. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 450–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955371
    Herman, A., & Swiss, T. (2000). The world wide web and contemporary cultural theory. London: Routledge.
    Hermes, J. (1995). Reading women's magazines: An analysis of everyday media use. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2).
    Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computermediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039906
    Hess, D. (2001). Ethnography and the development of science and technology studies. In P.Atkinson, A.Coffey, S.Delamont, J.Lofland, & L.Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 234–245). London: Sage.
    Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. E. (2002). The UK e-Science Core Programme and the grid. Future Generation Computing Systems, 18(8), 1017–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-739X%2802%2900082-1
    Hine, C. (1995). Representations of information technology in disciplinary development: Disappearing plants and invisible networks. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(1), 65–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399502000104
    Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
    Hine, C. (2001). Web pages, authors and audiences: The meaning of a mouse click. Information, Communication & Society, 4(2), 182–198.
    Hine, C. (2002). Cyberscience and social boundaries: The implications of laboratory talk on the Internet. Sociological Research Online, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/hine.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.715
    Hine, C. (2005a). Introduction: Virtual methods and the sociology of cybersocial-scientific knowledge (pp. 1–16). In C.Hine (Ed.). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg.
    Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005b). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford: Berg.
    Hine, C. (2008). Systematics as cyberscience: Computers, change and continuity in science. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262083713.001.0001
    Holloway, S., & Valentine, G. (2003) Cyberkids: Children in the information age. London: Routledge Falmer.
    Howard, P. N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media & Society, 4(4), 550–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146144402321466813
    Howard, P. N., & Jones, S. (Eds.). (2004). Society online: The Internet in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229560
    Howard, P. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and nights on the Internet. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 382–404.
    HSFR. (1990/1999). Forskningsetiska principer i humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Antagna av Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga forskningsrådet i mars (Ethical principles for scientific research in the humanities and Social Sciences adopted by the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences [HSFR]). Retrieved February 11, 2002, from http://www.vr.se/download/18.6687410b37070528800029/HS%5B1%5D.pdf
    IRB Guidebook. (n.d.). Office for Human Research Protections. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_introduction.htm
    Irwin, K. (2006). Into the dark heart of ethnography: The lived ethics and inequality of intimate field relationships. Qualitative Sociology, 29(2), 155–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11133-006-9011-3
    Jackson, S. (1986). Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In D. G.Ellis & W. A.Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Johns, M. D., Chen, S. L. S., & Hall, G. J. (Eds.). (2004). Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics. New York: Peter Lang Press.
    Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1999). Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231471
    Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
    Karlsson, A. M. (2002). Skriftbruk i förändring. En semiotisk studie av den personliga hemsidan. Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. New series 25. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
    Kauffman, B. (1992). Feminist facts: Interview strategies and political subjects in ethnography. Communication Theory, 2(3), 187–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00038.x
    Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley: University of California Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520230361.001.0001
    Kendall, L. (2005). Diary of a networked individual. In Internet research annual, 2. New York: Peter Lang.
    King, S. A. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. Information Society, 12(2), 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713856145
    Kivits, J. (2005). Online interviewing and the research relationship. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 35–50). Oxford: Berg.
    Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Kohler Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis: Qualitative research methods Series 30. London: Sage.
    Kraidy, M. M. (1999). The global, the local, and the hybrid: A native ethnography of glocalization. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16, 456–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039909367111
    Kulick, D. (1995). Introduction: The sexual life of anthropologists: Erotic subjectivity and ethnographic work. In D.Kulick & M.Willson (Eds), Taboo: Sex, identity, and erotic subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203420379
    Kulick, D., & Willson, M. (Eds.). (1995). Taboo: Sex, identity, and erotic subjectivity in anthropological fieldwork. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203420379
    Lally, E. (2002). At home with computers. Oxford: Berg.
    Lather, P. (2001). Postbook: Working the ruins of feminist ethnography. Signs, 27(1), 199–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495677
    Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M.Lynch & S.Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
    Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225716
    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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636310303140
    Lengel, L. B. (1998). Researching the “other,” transforming ourselves: Methodological considerations of feminist ethnography. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22(3), 229–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0196859998022003001
    Lenhart, A. (2001, September 21). Who's not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on. Retrieved January 28, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_Those_Not_Online_Report.pdf
    Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
    Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind, trans. JohnWeightman and DoreenWeightman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (
    2nd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219522
    Livingstone, S. (2006). Children's privacy online: Experimenting with boundaries within and beyond the family. In R.Kraut, M.Brynin, & S.Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones and the Internet: Domesticating information technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Lövheim, M. (1999). Making meaning of virtual religion: Methodological and ethical concerns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, and the Religious Research Association, Boston.
    Lull, J. (1991). Inside family viewing. London: Routledge.
    Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02632760022051202
    Mackay, H. (2005). New connections, familiar settings: Issues in the ethnographic study of new media use at home. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 129–140). Oxford: Berg.
    Malinowski, B. (1967). A diary in the strict sense of the term. London: Routledge.
    Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage.
    Månsson, S. A., & Söderlind, P. (2003). Sexindustrin på nätet. Aktörer, innehåll, relationer och ekonomiska flöden. Stockholm: Egalité.
    Marcus, G. E. (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000523
    Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2005). Refunctioning ethnography: The challenge of an anthropology of the contemporary. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (
    3rd ed.
    , pp. 1099–1113). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    Markham, A. (1995). Designing discourse: A critical analysis of strategic ambiguity and workplace control. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 389–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318996009004002
    Markham, A. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
    Markham, A. (2003, October 19). Broadening options and raising standards for qualitative Internet research: A dialogue among scholars. Roundtable conducted at the Association of Internet Researchers 4th annual convention, Toronto.
    Markham, A. (2004a). Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. In D.Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 95–124). London: Sage.
    Markham, A. (2005a). Disciplining the future: A critical organizational analysis of Internet Studies. Information Society, 21, 257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240591007571
    Markham, A. (2005b). Go ugly early: Fragmented narrative and bricolage as interpretive method. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), 813–839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405280662
    Markham, A. (2005c). The politics, ethics, and methods of representation in online ethnography. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (
    3rd ed.
    , pp. 793–820). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Markham, A. (2006). Ethic as method, method as ethic. Journal of Information Ethics, 15(2), 37–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3172/JIE.15.2.37
    Marshall, J. (2003). The sexual life of cyber-savants. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 14, 229–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2003.tb00232.x
    Martin, E. (1995). Flexible bodies: The role of immunity in American culture from the days of polio to the age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.
    Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
    McQuail, D. (2000). McQuail's mass communication theory (
    4th ed.
    ). London: Sage.
    McRae, S. (1996). Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body. In L.Cherny & E. RebaWeise (Eds.), Wired women (pp. 242–263). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
    McRae, S. (1997). Flesh made word: Sex, text and the virtual body. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 73–86). New York: Routledge.
    Miller, D. (Ed.). (1995). Worlds apart: Modernity through the prism of the local. London: Routledge.
    Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
    Mitchell, E. (1985). The dynamics of family interaction around home video games. In M. B.Sussman (Ed.), Personal computers and the family. New York: Haworth Press.
    Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Moor, J. (1997). Toward a theory of privacy for the information age. Computers and Society, 27(3), 27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/270858.270866
    Moores, S. (2000). Media and everyday life in modern society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
    Morley, D. (1980). The nationwide audience. London: British Film Institute.
    Morley, D. (1986). Family television. London: Comedia.
    Mosher, J. (2001). Setting free the bears: Refiguring fat men on television. In J. E.Braziel & K.LeBesco (Eds.), Bodies out of bounds: Fatness and transgression (pp. 166–196). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Munt, S. R. (2001). Technospaces: Inside the new media. New York: Continuum.
    Negus, K., & Pickering, M. (2004). Creativity, communication and cultural value. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446220740
    NESH. (1999). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, jus og humaniora. (Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities). Retrieved February 11, 2002, from http://www.etikkom.no/NESH/nesh.htm
    Newton, E. (1993a). Cherry Grove, Fire Island. New York: Beacon.
    Newton, E. (1993b). My best informant's dress. Cultural Anthropology, 8, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/can.1993.8.1.02a00010
    Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1995). Home and work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    O'Brien, J. (1999). Writing in the body: Gender (re)production in online interaction. In M.Smith & P.Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge.
    Olwig, K. F., & Hastrup, K. (Eds.). (1997). Siting culture: The shifting anthropological object. London: Routledge.
    Orgad, S. (2005a). Moving from online to offline relationships with research participants. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 51–65). Oxford: Berg.
    Orgad, S. (2005b). Storytelling online: Talking breast cancer on the Internet. New York: Peter Lang.
    Orgad, S. (2007). The interrelations between online and offline: Questions, issues and implications. In R.Mansell, C.Avgerou, D.Quah, & R.Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies (pp. 514–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? IRB guidebook. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm
    O'Riordan, K., & Phillips, D. (2007). Queer online: Media, technology, & sexuality. New York: Peter Lang.
    Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Park, H., & Thelwall, M. (2003). Hyperlink analyses of the world wide web: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4). (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/)
    Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Philo, G., & Berry, M. (2004). Bad news from Israel. London: Pluto Press.
    Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit one another. In W. E.Bijker, T. P.Hughes, & T.Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Pitts, V. (2004). Illness and Internet empowerment: Writing and reading breast cancer in cyberspace. Health, 8(1), 33–59.
    Plant, S. (1998). Coming across the future. In J. BroadhurstDixon & E. J.Cassidy (Eds.), Virtual futures: Cyberotics, technology and post-human pragmatism (pp. 30–36). London: Routledge.
    Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2. London: Sage.
    Porter, D. (1997). Internet culture. London: Routledge.
    Poster, J. (2002). Trouble, pleasure, and tactics: Anonymity and identity in a lesbian chat room. In M.Consalvo & S.Paasonen (Eds.), Women & everyday uses of the Internet: Agency & identity. New York: Peter Lang.
    Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
    Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Radway, J. (1984). Reading the romance. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    Rambo-Ronai, C. (1995). Multiple reflections of child sex abuse: An argument for a layered account. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 395–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124195023004001
    Reid, E. (1996). Informed consent in the study of on-line communities: A reflection on the effects of computer-mediated social research. Information Society, 12(2), 169–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713856138
    Reid, E. (1999). Hierarchy and power: Social control in cyberspace. In A. M.Smith & P.Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 107–133). London: Routledge.
    Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (
    3rd ed.
    , pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Robins, K., & Webster, F. (1999). Times of the technoculture: From the information society to the virtual life. New York: Routledge.
    Robinson, W. (2001). Clicks, cliques, soaps, and posts. Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies. Retrieved from http://rccs.usfca.edu/bookinfo.asp?ReviewID=115&BookID=103
    Rogers, R., & Marres, N. (2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the world wide web. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 141–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/304
    Rommetveit, R. (1980). On “meanings” of acts and what is meant and made known by what is said in a pluralistic social world. In M.Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action (pp. 108–149). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Rutter, J., & Smith, G. W. H. (2005). Ethnographic presence in a nebulous setting. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 81–92). Oxford: Berg.
    Sanders, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In C.Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 67–79). Oxford: Berg.
    Schaap, F. (2002). The words that took us there: Ethnography in a virtual reality. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    Schneider, S. M., & Foot, K. A. (2004). The web as an object of study. New Media & Society, 6(1), 114–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039912
    Schneider, S. M., & Foot, K. A. (2005). Web sphere analysis: An approach to studying online action. In C.Hine (Ed.) Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 157–170). Oxford: Berg.
    Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House.
    Seale, C. (2005). New directions for critical Internet health studies: Representing cancer experience on the web. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(4), 515–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00454.x
    Select Committee on Science and Technology (2002). What on Earth? The threat to the science underpinning conservation. London: House of Lords.
    Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Furlong, J. (2005). Whose Internet is it anyway? Exploring adults’ (non)use of the Internet in everyday life. European Journal of Communication, 20(1), 5–26http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323105049631
    Sennett, R. (1974). The fall of public man. New York: W. W. Norton.
    Shaw, D. (1997). Gay men and computer communication: A discourse of sex and identity in cyberspace. In S.Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity & communication in cybersociety. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250303
    Silverman, D. (1989). Six rules of qualitative research. Symbolic Interaction, 12(2), 215–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.1989.12.2.215
    Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage
    Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage.
    Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (
    2nd ed.
    ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. London: Routledge.
    Skeggs, B. (1994). Situating the production of feminist ethnography. In M.Maynard & J.Purvis (Eds.), Researching women's lives (pp. 72–93). Basingstoke: Taylor and Francis.
    Skeggs, B. (2001). Feminist ethnography. In S.Delamont, P.Atkinson, & A.Coffey (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 426–442). London: Sage.
    Slack, J. D. (1981). Programming protection: The problem of software. Journal of Communication, 31, 151–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01214.x
    Slack, J. D. (1989). Contextualizing technology. In B.Dervin, L.Grossberg, B. O'Keefe, & E.Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication; Vol. 2: Paradigm/exemplars (pp. 329–345). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Slack, J. D., & Allor, M. (1983). The political and epistemological constituents of critical communication research. Journal of Communication, 33, 208–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02421.x
    Slack, J. D., & Wise, J. M. (2005). Culture + technology: A primer. New York: Peter Lang.
    Slater, D. (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offline. In L.Lievrouw & S.Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media (pp. 534–547). London: Sage.
    Smith, J. K., & Deemer, D. K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (
    2nd ed.
    , pp. 877–896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Smith, M., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/9789056290818
    Spinello, R., & Tavani, H. (2004). Readings in cyberethics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
    Srinivasan, R. (2006). Indigenous, ethnic, and cultural articulations of new media. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367877906069899
    Srinivasan, R. (2007). Ethnomethodological architectures: The convergence between an information system and the cultural landscape. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 58(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20544
    Srinivasan, R., & Huang, J. (2005). Fluid ontologies for digital museums. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 5, 193–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00799-004-0105-9
    Srinivasan, R., & Pyati, A. (2007). Diasporic information environments: Re-framing immigrant information focused research. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1734–1744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20658
    Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families. New York: Basic Books.
    Stern, S. (2003). Encountering distressing information in online research: A consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities. New Media and Society, 5, 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005002006
    Stern, S. (2004). Studying youth online: A consideration of ethical issues. In E. A.Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 274–287). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Sterne, J. (2000). Bordieu, technique, and technology. Cultural Studies17(3/4), 367–389.
    Sterne, J. (2005). Digital media and disciplinarity. Information Society, 21, 249–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240591007562
    Sterne, J., & Leach, J. (2005). The point of social construction and the purpose of social critique. Social Epistemology, 19(2–3), 189–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691720500224657
    Stone, A. R. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sudweeks, F., & Rafaeli, S. (1995). How do you get a hundred strangers to agree? Computer-mediated communication and collaboration. In T. M.Harrison & T. D.Stephen (Eds.), Computer networking and scholarship in the 21st century university (pp. 115–137). New York: SUNY Press.
    Sundén, J. (2003). Material virtualities: Approaching online textual embodiment. New York: Peter Lang.
    Sveningsson, M. (2001). Creating a sense of community. Experiences from a Swedish web chat. Dissertation, Linköping Studies in Art and Science.
    Sveningsson, M. (2003). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In E. A.Buchanan (Ed.), Virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
    Sveningsson, M. (2005). Ungdomars köns- och identitetsarbete på internet. In B.Axelsson & J.Fornäs (Eds.), Kulturstudier i Sverige. Nationell forskarkonferens. Norrköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.
    Sveningsson, M., Lövheim, M., & Bergquist, M. (Eds.). (2003). Att fånga nätet: Kvalitativa metoder för Internetforskning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    Svensson, I. (2002). Maskulinitet som behag och begär. Om läderbögars självpresentation. In L.Gerholm (Ed.), Lust, lidelse och längtan. Kulturella perspektiv på sexualitet. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
    Taylor, T. L. (1999). Life in virtual worlds: Plural existence, multimodalities, and other on-line research challenges. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 436–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955362
    Thompson, J. B. (1994). Social theory and the media. In D.Crowley & D.Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 27–49). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    Thorseth, M. (Ed.). (2003). Applied ethics in Internet research. Programme for Applied Ethics, Publication Series No. 1. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    Turnbull, D. (2007). Maps, narratives and trails: Performative, hodology, distributed knowledge in complex adaptive systems—An approach to emergent mapping. Geographical Review, 45(2), 140–149.
    Tyler, S. (1986). Postmodern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult document. In J.Clifford & G.Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 122–140). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
    Vanderwal, Thomas (n.d.). Folksonomy. Retrieved from http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
    Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Van Zoonen, L. (2002). Gendering the Internet: Claims, controversies and cultures. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 5–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017001605
    Wakeford, N. (1996). Sexualized bodies in cyberspace. In W.Chernaik, M.Deegan, & A.Gibson (Eds.), Beyond the book: Theory, culture, and the politics of cyberspace. London: University of London.
    Wakeford, N. (2000). Cyberqueer. In D.Bell & B.Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader. New York: Routledge.
    Wakeford, N. (2003). Research note: Working with new media's cultural intermediaries. The development of collaborative projects at INCITE. Information, Communication and Society6(2), 229–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118032000093905
    Walker, J. (2002, June). Making common ground: Methodological and ethical challenges in Internet research. Presentation at Nordic Interdisciplinary Workshop at NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
    Ward, K. (2003). An ethnographic study of Internet consumption in Ireland: Between domesticity and the public participation. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EMTEL/reports/ward_2003_emtel.pdf
    Warren, C. A. B., & Hackney, J. K. (2000). Gender issues in ethnography. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Waskul, D. (2003). Self-games and body-play: Personhood in online chat and cybersex. New York: Peter Lang.
    Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research. Information Society, 12(2), 129–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713856142
    Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, globalization, and networked individualism. In M.Tanabe, P.van den Besselar, & T.Ishida (Eds.), Digital cities II: Computational and sociological approaches (pp. 10–25). Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45636-8_2
    Wellman, B. (n.d.). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/netlab/PUBLICATIONS/_frames.html
    Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2002). The Internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470774298
    Wengle, J. (1988). Ethnographers in the field: The psychology of research. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Weston, K. (1998). Long slow burn: Sexuality and social science. New York: Routledge.
    Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Wilson, B., & Atkinson, M. (2005). Rave and straightedge, the virtual and the real: Exploring on-line and off-line experiences in Canadian youth subcultures. Youth & Society, 36(3), 276–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03260498
    Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Wolcott, H. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
    Wolcott, H. (2005). Art of fieldwork (
    2nd ed.
    ). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
    Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Woodland, R. (2000). Queer spaces, modem boys and pagan statues: Gay/lesbian identity and the construction of cyberspace. In D.Bell & B.Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader. New York: Routledge.
    Woolgar, S. (1988). Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In S.Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 14–34). London: Sage.
    Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (2002). Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Wright, L. K. (Ed.). (1997). The bear book: Readings in the history and evolution of a gay male subculture. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

    About the Contributors

    Maria Bakardjieva is an associate professor in the Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary. She is the author of Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life (2005, Sage). Her research examines how users mobilize and appropriate the internet in a variety of social contexts including the home, educational settings, and online and local communities.

    Nancy Baym is an associate professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. She has written many widely cited articles about online fan communities and social aspects of online interaction and is the author of the book, Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community (2000, Sage). She is a co-founder and past president of the Association of Internet Researchers. She is an award-winning teacher whose courses address the use of new communication technologies in creating identities, relationships, and communities; interpersonal communication; and qualitative research methods. She serves on the editorial boards of the premier journals in the field, including New Media & Society, Journal of Communication, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Information Society. Her blog about fan activity on the internet can be found at http://www.onlinefandom.com

    Danah Boyd is a doctoral candidate in the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Her dissertation focuses on how youth engage in networked publics like MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Xanga, and the like. In particular, she is interested in how American teens formulate a presentation of self and negotiate socialization in mediated contexts amidst invisible audiences. This work is funded by the MacArthur Foundation as part of a broader grant on digital youth and informal learning. danah also holds a bachelor's degree in computer science from Brown University and a master's degree in sociable media from MIT Media Lab.

    Elizabeth Buchanan is an associate professor and director of the Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She researches and teaches courses in the areas of information ethics and research methods. She serves as co-director of the International Society of Ethics and Information Technology (INSEIT), chair of the Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Group, and is chair elect of the Wisconsin Library Association Intellectual Freedom Round Table. She spends her time with her systems librarian husband, two children, five cats, numerous fish, and one lizard.

    John Edward Campbell is a doctoral candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and an instructor at the University of Minnesota. He is interested in the construction of identity and community in cyberspace and how it is increasingly shaped by the commercial forces of target marketing and consumer surveillance. He is currently working on his second book, which examines the commodification of online communities. His first book, Getting It On Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male Sexuality, and Embodied Identity, was published by Haworth Press in 2004. John also holds a master's degree from the University of Massachusetts–Amherst.

    Malin Sveningsson Elm is an assistant professor in the department of Media and Communication studies at Karlstad University, Sweden. She received her PhD from the Department of Communication Studies at Linköping University, Sweden. Her publications include Creating a Sense of Community. Experiences from a Swedish Web Chat, and she is a co-author of the edited collections, Digital Borderlands: Cultural Studies of Identity and Interactivity on the Internet and Cyberfeminism in Northern Lights. Gender and Digital Media in a Nordic Context. She is also a co-author of a Swedish textbook on internet research methods. Her research interests include computer-mediated communication, social interaction, youth culture, and gender and identity.

    Radhika Gajjala, who received her PhD from the University of Pittsburgh, is an associate professor and graduate coordinator in the School of Communication Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Her research interests include Science and Technology Studies, ICTs and globalization, South Asians and cyberspace, and the production of race online and in virtual learning environments. Her work has appeared in Feminist Media Studies, International and Intercultural Annual, Contemporary South Asia, Technospaces: Inside the New Media (2001), and Domain Errors! Cyberfeminist Practices (2003). Her book, Cyberselves:Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women, was published by Altamira Press in 2004. She is currently co-editing two interdisciplinary collections of essays, one on South Asian technospaces and the other on webbing cyberfeminist practice. She is also working on a book to be titled Technocultural Agency: Production of Identity Through Presence/Absence at the Intersection of Virtual/Real Digital Cultures (under contract with Lexington).

    Christine Hine is a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey. Her main research centers on the sociology of science and technology, including ethnographic studies of scientific culture, information technology, and the internet. Her published work on research methods and the internet includes Virtual Ethnography (2000, Sage) and the edited collection Virtual Methods (2005, Berg). Christine is currently president of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology.

    Lori Kendall is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Her research focuses on information technologies and culture, including online community and identity. Her book Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online (2002) was published by the University of California Press. Other writings regarding online research methods can be found in Doing Internet Research (1999, Sage), Online Social Research: Methods, Issues, & Ethics (2004, Peter Lang), and Handbook of Research on New Literacies (in press, Lawrence Erlbaum).

    Elaine Lally is a senior research fellow and assistant director of the Centre for Cultural Research at the University of Western Sydney. She conducts research in the areas of art and technology as material culture and the role of arts and culture in regional development (especially in Western Sydney). Recent projects include the development of a digital cultural atlas to support cultural planning by local government, and she is currently undertaking a three-year Australian Research Council grant to document and evaluate an innovative contemporary arts-in-business initiative in Western Sydney. Dr. Lally is author of At Home with Computers (2002, Berg). She holds a PhD in Cultural Histories and Futures from the University of Western Sydney and a master's degree in Anthropology from Australian National University.

    Annette Markham is a senior research fellow in the Center for Information Policy Research at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, researching the connection between method and ethics and conducting research of decision-making processes in institutional review boards. She is also a senior development specialist for the State of Wisconsin, working with subject matter experts in the corrections system to design ethically grounded online training. Her primary research focuses on ethical practices in qualitative internet research and sense-making in technologically mediated spaces. Her book Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space (1998, Alta Mira) has been regarded as a foundational sociological study of the internet experience. Other writing related to method can be found in the The SAGE Handbook for Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, 3rd ed, Sage); Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice (Silverman, 2004, Sage), and such journals as Qualitative Inquiry, Information Society, and Journal of Information Ethics. Annette received her PhD from Purdue University.

    Shani Orgad, PhD, is a lecturer in Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her first book, Storytelling Online: Talking Breast Cancer on the Internet, explores the online communication of breast cancer patients (2005, Peter Lang). Her work has appeared also in journals including New Media & Society and Feminist Media Studies and in these edited collections: Oxford University Press Handbook on ICTs (2007, Oxford University Press), Virtual Methods (2005, Berg), and Web Studies (2004, Arnold).

    Ramesh Srinivasan, assistant professor of Information Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), has focused his research globally on the development of information systems within the context of culturally differentiated communities. He has studied how the cultural practices specific to communities can manifest themselves in an information system's architecture, particularly with respect to how it represents, categorizes, and disseminates the information it stores. His research has spanned such bounds as e-governance; public health; development informatics; and digital preservation across Asian, African, Australasian, and North American field environments. His research has received international acclaim and has appeared in top academic and international journals. For more detail, please consult his web page: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/srinivasan/index.html

    Susannah Stern, who received her PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is currently an associate professor in the Communication Studies Department at the University of San Diego. Her research is situated at the intersection of electronic media and youth culture. She focuses on how young people experience the mediated world, how they use media to navigate through adolescence, and how they construct media messages to meet their own needs and fantasies. Her work has appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Women's Studies in Communication, and New Media & Society, as well as in several edited collections.

    Jenny Sundén is an assistant professor in Media Technology at the School of Computer Science and Communication, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. She received her PhD from the Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University. She has published primarily on new media, cultural studies, cyberfeminism, online ethnography, and digital textuality. She is the author of Material Virtualities: Approaching Online Textual Embodiment (2003, Peter Lang) and is a co-editor of Cyberfeminism in Northern Lights: Digital Media and Gender in a Nordic Context (2007, Cambridge Scholars Publishing).


    • Loading...
Back to Top