Ethnography and Internet

Differences in doing ethnography in real and virtual

environments
Stefan Olsson
steffe@informatik.gu.se
Viktoria Institute
Box 620
SE-405 30
Göteborg

Abstract
This paper is a literature survey of ethnography and how it is used when studying
Internet opposed to when it is used to study the real world. The paper starts with an
overview of the ethnographical method and its way in collecting data and after that
it looks at cases done on Internet to point out the differences in work method. The
conclusion of the paper is that the main difference when collecting data is that in
the virtual environment the researcher is not co-located in time and space
compared to the real world. Another difference is that the ethnographer can easily
be invisible in a virtual world.

1. Introduction
To go out in the world and do ethnographical studies and learn more about its inhibitors
and their way of life has a long history in the western world. Anthropologists has
travelled around the world to study tribes and to participate in their every day life for long
periods of time to collect data fore there work, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p1).
After years of field studies they went back to the “civilised” world, evaluated the data and
presented their results in books, papers, and reports in an ethnographical way.
Nowadays the anthropologists or the ethnographer do not have to travel around
the world to find, fore them, strange civilisations to study. These strange civilisations are
only a click away on their keyboards. With that click there has been a change in how to
do ethnographical studies. Zuboff (1989) makes us realise that the technology is altering
the way the ethnographer is performing work.
To study tribes, from here on I will call it communities, on Internet is in one way
another business then to study communities in the real world. One fact is due to the
distance in space. The ethnographer and the setting are not necessary co-located, in this
way the researcher and the studied do not share the same physical space. The researcher
and the people being studied can be time zones apart.
Another fact is time. Time matters in how the interaction is performed, if the
communication and interaction is synchronous or asynchronous affects the way the
communication and interaction takes place.
Internet is, as put forward by Paccagnella (1997), “an international, chaotic,
dense bazaar inhabited by all kinds of people”. This is one reason why it is interesting

Proceedings of IRIS 23. Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University of Trollhättan Uddevalla,
2000. L. Svensson, U. Snis, C. Sørensen, H. Fägerlind, T. Lindroth, M. Magnusson, C. Östlund (eds.)
and valuable to study Internet from an ethnographical point of view, human beings
inhabit Internet. Humans from all over the world participate in the interaction. Another
reason to look at Internet and its communities, from an ethnographical point of view, is
that it is an example of a media that is capable of building relationship. The media it self
support both sound and image, facts that help communication and relation building. A
third reason is that on Internet there are virtual places/activities or communities where
people go and interact with each other. All this reasons are good reasons for doing
ethnographical studies to learn more about people’s behaviour on the net.
This literature study will point out differences in ethnographical method when
doing ethnography on communities that exists in the virtual world (Internet) in
comparison to do ethnography on communities that exists in the real world. The purpose
with the paper is to clarify the differences in accessing and collecting data when doing
ethnographical studies on virtual communities compared to real communities.
The paper starts with going through real world ethnography and looks into its
different kind of problems when it comes to collecting data. After that the paper looks
into the problems related to doing ethnography in the virtual world. The paper ends with
a discussion where the problems of real and virtual world ethnography is compared and
finally finish with conclusions.

2. Ethnographical methods for collecting data in the

real world
Ethnography is a qualitative research method, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995;
Silverman, 1993; McCracken, 1988). There is an ongoing discussion between researchers
advocated to quantitative methods on one hand and qualitative methods on the other
hand, this discussion is something that the paper will not get very deep into. In the book
“Ethnography – Principles in practice” by Hammersley & Atkinson (1995), they give a
good description of ethnography and the problems and possibilities around qualitative
research methods oppose to quantitative methods. They point out with the help of
references from cases, examples of problems that could occur when doing ethnographical
studies, from unfriendly people via personal features to access to the setting. They also
talk about the limitations of the ethnographical method. Cases are often a single one or
just a few small cases and this leads to problems in generalisations, (Hammersley &
Atkinson, 1995, p42). Another weakness, put forward by the quantitative research
community, with this type of qualitative method is that it relies very much on observation
and this leads to that if we have two observers there will be two different observations
and by this, two different results, (Silverman, 1993, p9). But with qualitative methods,
like ethnography, the researcher will get a deeper and clearer view and understanding of
the setting, Hammersley & Atkinson (1995), Silverman (1993) and McCracken (1988)
argue in the favour of this point. The book “Management Research”(Easterby-Smith et
al., 1991) goes through the two viewpoints if there is interest in future reading.

2.1. Getting access to the data

In real world ethnography, observation is the hart of the method, (Garfinkel, 1967, p1).
The ethnographer is in the setting doing his/her observations and almost always the
people in the setting knows that the ethnographer is there. It is through this type of
observation the ethnographer gets his/her basic research data. By observing a setting the
ethnographer will learn what is going on, how it is done, why it is done in a certain way,
by whom and much more, as mention both by Hammersley & Atkinson (1995) and
Silverman (1993). With the gained knowledge the researcher gets from the observations
he/she can move on with his/her research. This can be done by doing interviews,
analysing text and document, and doing transcripts analyses to collecting data. But before
the ethnographer will be able to do observation, interviews and so on the researcher has
to get access to a setting.
Before getting access and entering a setting the researcher would like to have a
focus, a perspective or a clear idea of what he/she wants to investigate in the setting,
(Silverman, 1993, p36). This is to get some help in what to look for and what data to
collect. The ethnographer has to narrow down the setting and what is going to be studied.
By doing this it is easier to collect accurate data, (Fägerborg, 1996, p80-83). To gain
access to a setting is a practical question and the ethnographer can learn a lot from the
problems involved of being accepted into a setting. There is also information to gain from
the ways that leads around this problem of accepters and access, one can learn what is
“open and profound”, what is “taboo and closed” and how people react on the researchers
approach, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, ch3).
To enter a setting the researcher has to have a way in. In public settings there are
rules like “appropriate activity” and “styles of social interaction” that the researcher has
to be aware of to be accepted into a public setting. In more closed settings the personal
network like friends or other personal contacts makes it easier to gain access and enter
the setting, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, ch3). As Boden (1994, p217) mention in
they appendix to her book “The business of talk”, she learned how to act when one want
access to a closed setting and she gives the following advice, “Be flexible and modest in
early arrangements, work locally, use friends and close contacts as much as possible,
build trust by seeming to want very little and “grow” into the research site”.
A person who has the power to let the researcher into the setting is called a
gatekeeper, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p34). Gatekeepers are thus persons that the
ethnographer has to get through or around to get access to a more formal or privet setting,
like a factory floor, a discussion group or some other privet setting. As Hammersley &
Atkinson (1995) say “Knowing who has the power to open up or block off access, or who
consider themselves and are considered by others to have the authority to grant or refuse
access, is, of course, an important aspect of sociological knowledge about the setting”.
The gatekeeper can be a formal person, usually the first person the researcher make
contact with when asking fore permission to do the study, or an informal person who is
the gatekeeper of the “floor”, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).
Sometimes the researcher has to deceive the gatekeeper to get access to a setting.
This can be done in a number of ways, to tell a simple lie, start to work at the place with
out telling the real reason why one accepts the job, say that one is someone else to
mention a few tricks. It is not recommendable to do this but it can be a way of getting
access to a setting.
When I did some of my research at a movie theatre to get a description of how the
staffs use the ticket booking system, I did not have any problems with the gatekeepers.
The only problem I found was from the staffs that were worried of being unemployed. I
got the question “ Are you here to make us unemployed?”. It took some time for me to
explain that I was there to see how I could improve the system from there point if view,
so that it would work the way they found best. That satisfied the questioner and the
people on the floor accepted me into the setting.
 2.2. Identity, appearance and role of the fieldworker
When the researcher has gained access to the setting, in a proper way, he/she can find
him/her self bounded to the gatekeeper’s social net. This means that the researcher “will
be channelled in line with existing networks of friendship and enmity, territory and
equivalent ´boundaries´”, Hammersley & Atkinson (1995). The gatekeeper will also in
one way give the researcher his/her initial identity. This means that the ethnographer is
being identified and connected to the gatekeeper’s identity and knowledge.
One important thing to think of as an ethnographer is ones appearance. As
Hammersley & Atkinson (1995) say “it may be necessary for the researcher to dress in a
way that is very similar to the people that to be studied”. In this way the clothes give
respect and credibility, and help the researcher to blend with the “background”.
The ethnographer can get into situations where he/she has to look and focus on
the research. The researcher can in many ways be provoked. Hammersly & Atkinson
(1995) points this out, “as a researcher one often has to suppress or play down one’s own
personal beliefs, commitments, and political sympathies.” This is necessary from the
research point, the ethnographer wants to study the setting not affect it with his/her
personal feelings. But sometimes this is not possible and then the ethnographer has to
face the consequences.
Other things that can affect the research are the ethnographers, gender, age, race,
religion, and ethnic identity, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p92). All this features can
both have a positive and a negative effect upon the people in the setting, the research and
the way to get access to a setting.

Fieldwork
Comparative involvement Comparative detachment
Subjective and sympathy objectivity and sympathy

Participant as observer II III Observer as participant

Complete I IV Complete
Participant observer

Figure1. Hammersley & Atkinson (1995, p104), theoretical social roles for
fieldwork.

In the field the ethnographer will come to play different kind of roles in their line of
research. Hammersley & Atkinson (1995) give in their book an explanation to the
different roles that the ethnographer can take while he/she is doing fieldwork, se figure 1.
The two opposite characters that the researcher can take are complete participant one the
one side or complete observer on the other side. Depending on the setting the
ethnographer can or perhaps must chose a role that fits the purpose of the research, and it
is almost always a blend between the roles. One thing to think of though is that if the
researcher goes totally native and he/she do not tell who he/she is the researcher can find
them self in a very unpleasant situation, if the true identity of the mission gets exposed.
The role is also affected by the fact that the researcher mostly is a novice when the
study starts at the setting. This can be both good and bad. Good in the sense that as a
novice one can “ watch what other people are doing, ask other to explain what is
happening, try things out fore themselves – occasionally making mistakes – and so on.
The novice thus acts like a social scientist: making observations and inferences, asking
informants, constructing hypotheses and acting on them”, (Hammersley & Atkinson,
1995, p99). But it can be bad in the sense that if the researcher is in a, what people think,
familiar setting and acts as a novice then the ethnographer can be thought of as ignorant
and foolish person whom will gain no respect from his/her surrounding.
As a human we have a lot of ways to express our self and to show who we are,
this counts both for the researcher and the people he/she is studying. A woman can wear a
skirt to underline that she is a woman or a person can extend “the finger” to show
contempt for someone. Another thing is to have good manners that shows a persons
upper class origins, even if the clothes teal other wise, this to mention a few examples of
unsolicited accounts, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p126). This unsolicited account
tells a lot of the people at the setting and is worth looking into. But as Hammersley &
Atkinson (1995, p126) call attention to be that “the expressive power of language
provides the most important resource for accounts”. This is supported by Fägerborg
(1996, p21) where she claims that the linguistic expressions are the basic components in
human’s construction of reality. Hammersley & Atkinson (1995, p126) also says that is
due to “[the language] capacity to present descriptions, explanations, and evaluations of
almost infinite variety about any aspect of the world”. So when people interact they
change accounts. This changing of accounts is more likely to take place in certain
locations. Fore the ethnographer it is this areas one shall locate and try to be into do
observations. This is to be at the right place at the right time. This is pointed out by
Boden (1994, p152) when she says, that it “is a matter of sequential placement – of talk
and issues – and effective executives, politicians and even academics know that. Yet
being where the news breaks depends, in turn, on a continuous updating of people and
events just to be able to identify which information matters”. By this the researcher may
have a chance to be at the right place at the right time.

2.3. Collecting the data

When the ethnographer is accepted into the setting he/she will begin to collect data. Data
can be collected in different kind of ways, but as said above observation and participation
is of high importance in the line of ethnography. Depending on circumstances the
ethnographer must take other methods into consideration, like interview, documents,
texts and transcripts from tapes and videos. As Fägerborg (1996, p 85-87) says from
observing people in action one can learn a lot of what they do. But to get the whole
picture of their work one has, perhaps, to interview them and even try out their work
oneself.

2.3.1. Culture

The culture of a setting is something that the ethnographer has to be familiar with and a
lot of facts are to be found and collected here, especially when it comes to closed settings
like small groups on the factory floor, board rooms, offices and so on. The ethnographer
has to get behind the culture to be able to see what is really going on in the setting. Kunda
(1993, p23) point this out when he says “to begin to evaluate strong cultures in the
workplace it is necessary to go beyond free-floating rhetoric to the people who live with
these cultures and to the everyday lives in the course of which ideas are formed,
presented, and put into effect. Culture, in short, must be studied in context and the entire
normative transaction examined: managerial conceptions of culture, their enactment, and
the response of the members”.
A war story, as Julian Orr (1996) talks about it, is something that helps to build up
a culture and a community. In communities where the members are wide spread and only
meet for short periods of time and do not work close together, these type of stories are
important. Czarniawska (1997, p11-29) talks about the importance of stories or as she put
it narratives. She sees the narratives as one way to transfer knowledge within an
organisation. Orr (1996, ch8) take up this subject and says that it helps newcomers to get
into the culture when hearing this stories, the rookies get a feeling for the work and the
culture of the community. This social function also helps when it comes to make claim of
seniority, a senior knows a lot of stories that he has experienced or heard of. The war
stories also has an educational effect where others can learn from mistakes done or from
difficulties that are discovered and how these difficulties where solve, Orr (1996, ch8).

2.3.2. Observation, Fieldnotes and Situation plan of the setting

To do ethnographical studies the researcher has to do some sort of a recording of the

setting and its social life. One way of doing this is to take fieldnotes, while the researcher
is observing the setting. The fieldnotes are to their nature personal and privet, and they
have the power to evoke memories of what has been observed. Fieldnotes is a, more or
less, concrete description of social processes and of the context they take places. The idea
of taking fieldnotes “is to identify and develop” categories of interest for the research,
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p175). Fieldnotes shall be taken as soon as possible
after an event has taken place. But in some settings this can be hard to do due to social
rules, people get disturbed when the ethnographer take notes, the physical surrounding or
other problems. Here the ethnographer has to be inventive in his/her way of taking
fieldnotes.
When taking fieldnotes it is important to take notes about things that one do not
immediately understand. This kind of notes can later on prove important in understanding
the setting and its participants. Another thing that the fieldworker has to be aware of is
the setting’s shifting timetable, and the ethnographer has to adopt to it. When he/she is
adopting to the setting they have to remember to write down there fieldnotes. It is
absolutely crucial that the ethnographer find some time every day to write them down, in
a proper way. It is important to remember that one cannot totally rely on ones memory; it
will fail you, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p179). When taking fieldnotes, it is
important to remember that; it is impossible to record everything, (Silverman, 1993, p37).
This is something that one will learn as one start to do fieldwork.
One thing that is important to record is the language and words that are been used
in the setting. This is what Hammersley & Atkinson (1995, p182) say when they talk
about language and its important when it comes to “valuable information about the ways
in which members of a particular culture organise their perceptions of the world, and so
engage in the social construction of reality. Situated vocabularies and folk taxonomies
incorporate the typifications and recipes for action that constitute the stock-of-knowledge
and practical reasoning”. When taking fieldnotes and the exact words that was being said
at the time cannot be reproduced “the indirect speech may be used to indicate style and
content”, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). It is important to catch the “voice” of the
setting and who is speaking so that there will be no doubt about who is who and what the
“voice” is. When doing the recording of the “voice” it is also significant to look at the
time and context, people present at the setting when it was said, what the circumstances
was and so on, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).
One problem as mentioned above is that one cannot record every thing that
happens at a setting. Due to this the ethnographer has taken to his/her help different kind
of recording tools like tape recorder and video. These tolls can be very useful if used in a
proper way. But one shall be aware of their limits and the extra work they produce when
the researcher has to transcribe and interpret what has been said and done. The video and
the tape recorder provide the researcher with a lot of information and especially when
looking at the use of language and words.
To better understand how the setting is organised, what it looks like, managed etc
some type of outline describing the setting is good to have. The description of the setting
can be in words, the ethnographer writes down a description that will help to get a better
understanding of the setting. In chapter 2, Orr (1996) gives a good description of the
settings that he is investigating. He describes the settings in, “vignettes of work in the
field”. With these vignettes the reader will get into the settings and the problems that
occur there.
The description could be of a more general type of the context to the setting, like
the one given by Kunda (1992, p26), “High Technologies Corporation – commonly know
as Tech – is a large corporation that designs, develops, manufactures, sells, and service a
number of popular high-tech products”. Kunda (1992, p26-27) also gives a historical and
motive context to the setting; “The Company was funded in the fifties by a group of
engineers…they hoped to create a new kind of work environment”. There can be general
descriptions of management and its structure, “Tech’s management structure reflects the
continuing tension between the advocates of creativity and the advocates of control”,
(Kunda, 1992, p29). Social categories of the setting are another thing that is suited for
writing down. Kunda (1992, p38) writes of three different categories of employees, “
Wage class 4”, “Wage class 2”, and “temporary works”. The two first classes are
“considered full-fledge members of the organisation, and are entitled to all the rights and
benefits of employment”, but this dose not count for the temporary workers, Kunda
(1992, p38). Buy this one can see that the social aspects of the setting is effected due to
what class one look into, and the social aspects between the different classes.
With the help of an organisation chart the company can shown how the setting is
organised from their official point of view. The company thinks that the setting is
organised in one way, but when the ethnographer has looked into the organisation, the
setting, there can be a totally different organisation chart drawn from the ethnographer’s
point of view built on his/her investigations. In chapter 2 Kunda (1992) has organisation
charts to show how the organisation of Tech is organised.
Fägerborg (1996, ch2) describes the setting with the help of map of the buildings
and roads around the setting. She also uses blue prints to show a more detailed picture of
the setting, and she has photos that show views from inside the setting.
By describing the setting in this way the reader will get a good orientation of the
setting and will have an easier time to follow the ethnographers discuss about the setting.

2.3.3. Interview

When the ethnographer is collecting data he/she has to be aware of accounts and its
influence on the data. When he/she knows that they can understand how and why the data
is shaped in a certain way and with this insight they can “develop or test elements of the
emerging analyses”, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). In this point of view, the
interview, is a valuable instrument that can give the researcher “information that it would
be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain otherwise – both about events described and
about perspective and discursive strategies”, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, p131). To
use data both from interviews and observations can help the researcher to sort out
valuable data.
When the ethnographer has decided to do interviews the question rise: who to
interview. The ethnographer will have to think this through carefully before selecting
interviewees. He/she will have a number of people coming to him/her with ideas of who
to interview. It could be the self-selected type of person, someone who has been pointed
out by fellow-workers or the gatekeeper, to mention a few. The one important thing to be
aware of is that the people selected to be interviewed will have a great influence on the
researchers work and the data collected, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). The interview
itself can range from the spontaneous one at the setting to an arranged one in a room
specially prepared for the propose. To draw a line “between participant observation and
interviewing is hard to discern”, (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995), in the case of the
spontaneous interviewing type. Obvious there is a wide range of interview settings
between this tow types.
The way an interview is being carried out in ethnography is not in an unstructured
way even if it may seam so. The ethnographer has a set of questions (questionnaire) that
he/she wants to get an answer to, this questions help the ethnographer to stick to the
subject and to cover the area of interest. The questions help the researcher not to get
carried away and fall into the void of an open discussion with the interviewee, which can
be a catastrophe when trying to analyse different interviews from a common perspective.
The questions also help the ethnographer to focus on what the informant is saying,
(McCracken, 1988, p24-25). McCracken (1988, p29-48) presents a method of a
qualitative interview. With the help of this method the ethnographer can get some help in
structuring his/her qualitative interview. The model covers the start up process where the
researcher gets a good knowledge of the area of interest via literature studies and in this
way gets a felling for categories and relationships that will be investigated. The model
moves on with preparation of a questionnaire and what it has to take into consideration
when it comes to culture and the coming analyses of the collected data. The third step is
to really go through the questionnaire and to se that the planned prompts and other planed
effects that one want to have is in the questionnaire. After that has been done the
interview starts. The last step of the qualitative interview is to analyse the collected data.
McCracken (1988, p43) does this in a five-step process, which starts with the transcript
of the utterances and ends with interview.

2.3.4. Document and Texts

Documents are one type of data worth looking at when doing ethnographical studies,
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, ch6) and (Silverman, 1993, ch4). Depending on what
type of document it is (files, statistical record, records of official proceedings and images
to mention examples given by Silverman (1993, p61)) for what purpose it is made, who
has made it etc, it can tell things about the setting. If it is a personal document it is biased
with personal interests. If it is an official document it shall be treated with a critical
attitude, to be able to see what is behind the document. Hammersley & Atkinson (1995,
p173) gives a record of questions that the researcher can ask him/her self when analysing
documents. Silverman (1993, ch4) takes a starting point in these questions when he is
looking into different types of document and how they can be analysed and what
conclusions that can be drawn from the documents.
Both Silverman (1993, ch4) and Hammersley & Atkinson (1995, ch6) points out
the importance of analysing what is behind the words in a document. By looking at
expressions like “The X cried. The Y picked it up” Silverman (1995, p80) says that we as
human beings have categories that help us to interpret the situation. Like in this case
when we could interpret X as a baby and Y as a woman. These categories are in clusters
that is of a higher level of abstraction i.e. woman and baby is in the cluster family. But, a
little warning, one category can belong to more then one cluster, and this can make
interpretation it a little bit tricky. With the help of this categories and clusters we interpret
the activity that the document is describing and it gives us, among other things, the social
identity of the people involved in the activity. Silverman (1993, p82) say “we can
establish negative moral assessments of people by describing their behaviour in terms of
performing or avoiding activities inappropriate to their social identity”. By this Silverman
mean that when interpreting a document one must be aware of what and who is behind
the document before one can come to any conclusions, and this method is called
Membership Categorisation Device (MCD). MCD has its origin in Conversation
Analyses (CA) and Discourse Analyses (DA), which we will look into further down.

2.3.5. Transcripts

Transcripts of recorded data (tape or video) are a valuable source for the ethnographer,
but he/she has to know how to interpret the transcripted material. Silverman (1993, ch6)
take into consideration CA and DA, methods that are originated from linguistic theories.
Both CA and DA have as “a common intellectual ancestor in the Oxford philosopher J.L.
Austin”, (Silverman, 1993, p120). Austin (1962) has shown that when a person utters
cretin types of expressions he/she performs a speech act, an action that effects the world.
When a judge sends someone to prison he perform a speech act, when he/she says –“I
here by sentence you to three years of prison”. By this utterance the judge effects the
world and it is the effecting that is the important thing here. An additional thing is that
there are rules or circumstances giving the utterance a context and legitimacy. One way of
interpreting speech acts, as Boden (1994, p8) puts it, is that when she says “When people
come together in organisations to get things done, they talk”, it can mean that people
affect the world, or in Bodens case the organisation, via there talk or speech acts.
Discourse analyses point out that humans through their language is constructing
their social world. DA means that one is studying conversations and other linguistic
expressions with out jumping into conclusions that are outside the context of the
communication or the interview, (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 1994, p283). Silverman (1993)
means that with the help of linguistic theories the ethnographer can look deeper into what
is actually being said and with such types of tools as, CA and DA, find more data to
analyse. Boden (1994) uses linguistic theories when she does her research. Boden (1994)
is, among many things, looking at turn taking, and the rules that governing the turn
taking, in order to figure out who has the authority or the power in a communication and
an organisation.
Another person who has been looking into linguistic theories to get some help in
collecting and interpreting data is Garfinkel (1967) with his studies in conversation
analyses.
3. Ethnographical methods for collecting data in the
virtual world
In this part of the paper the author will go through cases of ethnography that has been
performed in a virtual environment and see how the researchers has collected there data
and how they get access to a setting.

3.1. Getting access to the data

When it comes to have a focus or a perspective of the investigation it is good to know
what is possible to look for in a virtual environment, Paccagnella (1997). It can be hard
trying to do observations of body language of participants in a virtual environment. Still
it can be possible to do observations of people’s behaviour, in a virtual world.
Diddell (1993) gives an example of this. He writes about a rape that take place in
a Multi-user dimension (MUD). MUDs are worlds that are built or described in words. In
these worlds there are people living and acting as if it is the real world. In this world,
built by words, where interaction is only by text messages, a horrible thing take place, a
sexual rape. Dibbell describes this event in his article and the important thing, from an
ethnographical point of view, is that it is described as if it had taken place in the real
world. Even if this article isn’t written from an ethnographical point of view, it is a good
example of what it is possible to focus on in a virtual environment and peoples feeling for
the virtual world.
A person with a good perspective of her study is Donath (1999, p29). This gives
her a good possibility to go through with her investigation in the virtual environment. She
is studying “how identity is established in an online community and to examine the
effects of identity deception and the conditions that give rise to it”. In this way she gives
her self a chance and a possibility to go through with her research. She has take into
consideration the limitations that the media has when it comes to do observation of
participants.
In a virtual environment the narrowing down of a setting could be that the
ethnographer give particular attention to a chosen community in a specific context, which
match his/her purpose with the investigation. Donath (1999, p30) dose this when she
says, “This chapter examines identity and deception in the context of the Usenet
newsgroups”. By claiming this we know the context to the setting, Usenet, and that she is
interested in specific communities, newsgroups. She narrows down the setting even
further when she gets into specific newsgroup in her examples.
It can be hard to enter and participate in a virtual community due to its culture.
New comers to a virtual community do not know have to “talk”, who to talk to, what is
taboo and what is not, and so on in there first contact with the community members.
Paccagnella (1997), describes this when he says; ”A stranger waiting to do academic
research is sometime seen as an unwelcome arbitrary intrusion”.
In the virtual communities there can be new norms in the way of how to
communicate (words, expressions, acronyms), new types of relationships, because a
person can claim to be someone else which leads to new types of identities. Even if it is
possible to do observation, it can be hard to do interviews with the people in the virtual
community. (say something about way it can be hard, move to interview?)
 3.2. Identity, appearance and role of the fieldworker
In a virtual environment there are numerous ways to identify a person, (Donath, 1999).
By looking at the header, the message body and the signature it can be possible to at least
distinguish a person’s gender. Depending on what and how a person is writing it can also
be possible to identify age, race, affiliation, and religious belief. But if a person wants
he/she can be someone else and it can be a very hard time, if ever possible, to prove that
someone has taken a new identity. So a persons appearance and identity in a virtual
environment can vary depending on in which virtual environment he/she appears.
In a virtual environment the ethnographer can participate or be an observer. As an
observer the ethnographer can be anonymous to the people being studied. In being an
observer the media will let the researcher to have access to the community without the
people in it being inflected by the researcher. He/she does not interfere or effect the
setting he/she is studying, or as Paccagnella (1997) says, “it reduces the danger of
distorting data and behaviour by the presence of the researcher”. In one sense the
ethnographer do not even have to inform the people he/she are studying. That is an
ethical question, not to be discussed here, but as a researcher one has to think about it so
that one do not act unethical. In the cases I have done, I have chosen to make the setting
and the people in the setting anonymous.
Mynatt et al (1999) did participate in their research of SeniorNet. They posted
questions and statements that lead to discussions in the community. They also took part
in the discussions that where held in the community.
Donath (1999) dose observations of people in the settings she is investigating.
She does not participate or take an active roll in the discussions that are in the
newsgroups. She observes what is said and interprets that with the help of theories of
linguistics, biology and game theory.

3.3. Collecting the data

3.3.1. Culture

One culture aspect to look into is seniority in a virtual setting. How is it being
manifested? How dose one get to be a senior, and so on. Donath (1999, p31) finds some
ways of claiming that a person in the setting is a senior. She means that by spending a
significant amount of time answering questions, up dating FAQ, debating, by being very
engaged in the community, they get a reputation in the community that, this is a person
who knows what he/she is doing and talking about. They are “adults”. One can also be
thought of as a senior by “posting intelligent and interesting comments, while in some
other[s] [communities] it is enhanced by posting rude flames or snide and cutting
observations”, (Donath, 1999).
As the communities online are so dependent on text, another thing to look into
when it comes to culture is language. Paccagnella (1997) points out that the language can
be used in a community to exclude newcomers. If one do not know how to write then one
is not a member of that community. Mynatt et al (1999) look at the use of language in the
SeniorNet community. They points out that in this community the language is nicer and
in one sense correct compared to other online communities.
One more thing noticed by Mynatt et al (1999) is that in the SeniorNet people are
more forgiving and understanding compared to other communities on Internet. In this
community people do not send rude messages to a person who ask a question that the
answer is to be found in the FAQ. Or if a person asks a question that is out of the subject
of the discussion he/she will get an answer to that question.

3.3.2. Observation, Fieldnotes and Situation plan of the setting

The fieldnotes that the ethnographer takes are of the cut-and-paste type. The researchers
only have to look through the history log of the discussion and he/she will find all the
material he/she wants and needs to the research. When looking at different types of work
did by ethnographers on Internet (Donath, 1999; Mynatt et al, 1999) they all present
messages that has been sent or posted to a community. It is more seldom that one will
find more exact descriptions of the interface to the community in a ethnographic report
on a virtual community.
Donath (1999, p30) has a general description of the setting she is studying. It is
written with out any explaining sketch of the interface or any organisational charts. She
describes the setting in the following way; “Although technically simple – they are
essentially bulletin boards – a complex social structure has evolved within them. Unlike
many MUDs, which are intended as fantasy worlds, most of the Usenet is meant to be a
non-fiction; the basic premise is that the users are who they claim to be. There is
however, a significant variance between newsgroups as to what constitutes a real or
legitimate identity. And there are numerous cases of identity deception, from the pseudo-
naive trolls to the mane-switching spammers.” Donath (1999, p34) also tells the reader
that there are thousand of different kinds of discussion groups with a big variation in
subjects and the way the participants treat each other. This is her general description of
the context to the setting. To get a better knowledge of the details she presents a
document from the setting and goes through the different parts of it.

3.3.3. Interview

Problems that can occur when doing interviews on the net are trust and misinterpretation,
Hamman (1999). To do an interview in a virtual community with a person that one has
not meet in person or face-to-face can be problematic when it comes to trusting each
other. The researcher has to trust the respondent and vice versa. This trust can take some
time to build up.
One other problem is that of misinterpretation. Both the interviewer and the
person getting interviewed can easily misunderstand each other. Reasons for
misunderstanding can be, use of words, culture related, interpretation of expressions and
signs, not a native speaker and so on.
Possibilities with doing interviews online are that one is doing the interview in an
environment that is familiar to the person getting interviewed. One can do the interview
in an open or privet chat if the researcher and the respondent find that suitable. The
interview can also take place via e-mail or another media like ICQ. In this way the
interview can be more or less spontaneous or if the researcher wants an arranged
interview.

3.3.4. Document and Texts

In Donaths (1999, p34-35) chapter she presents a document taken from the newsgroups,
at Usenet, that she is studying. She goes through the different parts of the document; “the
header provides the writer’s name and email address, the body of the letter revels voice
and something of the history of the exchange, the signature shows the writer as he or she
chooses to be identified.”. By going through the different parts of the document she
shows what she is interested in. After that she goes through how she intends to use the
document for her studies. She also presents other clips from similar documents through
out the chapter to show what she means and to make the statements she claims
trustworthy.
In the virtual world there exists a lot of different types of documents. As
mentioned by Kollock & Smith (1999) there are; e-mail, chat, discussion list, e-mail lists,
to mention a few. The common with this is that they are all text based. Text based
communication is easy to collect and to do analyses on.

4. Discussion
In this part there will be a discussion on the differences in doing ethnography in the real
and the virtual world. I will look at the points that have been made in the previous
sections and discus them point by point.
To get access to a setting is easier in a virtual world, if one knows how to find it.
The researcher can be a lurker, a person that looks but do not contribute, and look into
different kind of settings (here the researcher has to think about ethics). When he wants
to interact and wants to be seen he/she can face the same kind of problems as in the real
world. In the real world there are gatekeepers who the researcher has to get by before the
actual data collecting begins. This can also be true in a virtual world.
When doing ethnography in the real world, especially when it comes to do
observation, like on the factory floor with a OK from management and gatekeepers, the
ethnographer and the people he/she is studying are in the same place at the same time.
The setting is co-located in time and space with the ethnographer. When the
ethnographers dose ethnography in the virtual world he/she is separated in space and
time. The people he/she is studying are not co-located with the researcher. There is, what
the author call, a time and space barrier. This barrier makes, in some cases, the
participation in every day life and the collection of field data a bit different then from the
real world. It is here, the author claim, that the overall difference between real life
ethnography and virtual life ethnography is when doing observations.
In the real world it is fairly simple to check and identify a person. There are id
cards, people at the setting knows the person, payrolls, grades from school and so on to
identify a person. By simply looking at the person one can (most of the time) describe
gender, age and race. A person can also in some cases decide social class and religion of
another person by looking at how a person is dressed. If one add sound to the possibilities
of identifying one can in some cases tell about nationality, region in the country, social
class and things about the actual setting. If we also add smell we can tell even more about
the persons identity and of the setting.
In the virtual environment this is for the moment not possible. In the virtual world
one has more or less trust the other person’s word for the identity he/she claims. The
difference in identity is that as a researcher one can use ones sense to do a identification
of another person’s identity in the real world. This one cannot do, yet, in the virtual
world. In the virtual world the ethnographer has to look into other things as how a person
uses the language, header on the e-mail, the signature, speed of writing and so on to be
able to get a hint of the other persons identity.
In a MUD the identity of the persons is what they say they are. In the MUD a
person create a personality with the help of a text description of him/her self. This
description is then counted as true in this world. The same person can have many
different identities in the community and on the net.
As a ethnographer, both on and of Internet, one can take different kind of roles in
the setting. In this way there is no difference of the two types of ethnography. The
ethnographer will find that both environments has effects on the role, but the different
effects do not differ more than between setting in the same world (thinking of ether
virtual or real).
In both the real and the virtual community there are different kind of stories about
the history of the community, people in it, things that has happened in the community,
etc. They have as a purpose to help to transfer knowledge to newcomers to the
community. In the virtual world one example is FAQ. The FAQ contain knowledge from
previous interaction with the community. They help people to get a better understanding
of the community and the culture it has. In the real world this stories exist as well. The
difference is that one person to an other tells them.
In the virtual community seniority is gained by being an active member in the
community and in this way showing that this is a person who knows what is right in the
context (subject) of the community. In this sense this is very much the same in the real
world. Maybe age playas a more important role in the real world. An older human knows
more that a younger. In a virtual community age do not show in the contact with others
unless one tells how old one is.
In the real world observation is the hart of ethnography. It is by observing the
world the researcher learns about it. In the virtual world this is a little bit harder. The
ethnographer cannot do the same type of observing. When people act in the communities
online they do it by text. It is through the text observed the ethnographer can draw
conclusions of what is being done. Dibbell (1993) presents one example of this in his
article “A rape in cyberspace”. This example shows that text is a very powerful tool when
it comes to creating a world. People who are in this text-based world rely get into it. This
dose then affect how the ethnographer shall look into this virtual world in the way that
people in the MUD looks up on it as real as the real world. MUDs differ in this way from
discussion list or e-mail list when MUD is in real time and a synchronous interaction
between people. Discussion lists and e-mail lists are of the asynchronous type. Yes, even
they, e-mail list and so on, can create strong feelings but the interaction is slower and
there are not a world built around them in the same way as in a MUD.
To do observation in a virtual world is more about looking into textual interaction
in a more or less described context. In the real world setting people move and interact
with objects and other people and they are aware of what is happening in the surrounding.
In the real world text is used to transfer information, not to used to build the actual world.
In the virtual world the people are not always aware of other people in there
surrounding. In this sense the ethnographer can “observe” without that he/she is effecting
the setting. This is something that is harder to achieve in the real world. To be able to do
this the ethnographer has to be hidden away in one way or another. In the real world the
ethnographer is effecting the setting just by being at the setting.
A subject closely related to this subject is ethics. I will not discuss the subject
only point out that it is very important that the researcher think of this before he/she starts
to do his/her study. The study can have a negative effect on other persons if one is not
telling them that they are being studied.
In the real world the ethnographer make fieldnotes of the setting he/she is
studying. The fieldnotes are a concrete description of social processes of the context they
take place in. They have to be taken as son as possible after an event has taken place.
There can be a lot of things interfering the ethnographer when he/she wants to take
fieldnotes. Problems like social rules, disturbance, physical surrounding, shifting
timetables of the setting and so on. Other problems are of the type what to record and
what type of tool to use when recording (video, audio).
In a virtual environment this is a little bit easier. The media itself helps and
support the taking of fieldnotes. One is not disturbed by problems like in the real world.
As a researcher one can lean back and use the cut-and-paste method.
To do interviews on Internet is possible. In the virtual environment one can do
interviews as well as one can do interviews in the real world. But there are a few
differences. The first difference lies in trust. The trust must be built up between the
researcher and the respondent. The respondent must trust that the researcher actually is a
researcher and the respondent must trust that the person being interviewed relay is the
person he/she claims to be.
The other difference lies in the amount of information that can flow between the
ethnographer and the respondent. In a face-to-face interview there is more information
going between the researcher and the respondent. The researcher can use all his/her
senses in interpreting what is been said. This is not possible in a virtual environment.
Here the researchers only have a text to look at and to get a feeling of what is actually
been said.
When looking at the virtual world there are a lot of texts going back and forth
between people. They can be more or less formal, comparing e-mail with text in a MUD.
When looking at asynchronous media like e-mail and the interpretation done on these
(Donath, 1999) it is very similar to the interpretation that has been done by Boden (1994)
on old records of White house meetings. The records of White house meetings are in
their historic context asynchronous to us living in the present.
Documents can in the first place be thought of as the Internet is working. The can
be taken a way to be studied with out any problem due to time and place. But there is one
major difference compared to the electronic media. Whey will not record any new events
as soon as they are taken out of context. The discussion list, which can be read from a
computer located somewhere in the world, is constantly updated. The difference between
paper documents and for example discussion list is that the former is static and the later is
dynamic in their natures.
When looking at text and documents in a MUD it is more of looking at telephone
communication. The difference is that in the MUD there is text that can be stored for an
analyse later on, this one do not have automatically in a telephone communication.
In a virtual environment there is no vocal interaction as in a real community and
this makes transcripts in the way they are done in the real world unnecessary. But perhaps
it could come to use in a new shape when looking at turn taking in a conversation in a
MUD.

5. Conclusion
On Internet virtual communities can be platforms where people live their virtual everyday
lives. They act in this virtual world as they are in the real world. This is one reason why
to commit ethnographical studies in this worlds.
The main differences in doing ethnographical studies on virtual communities and
real communities lies in the fact that time and space separate the researcher and the
setting in the virtual setting. This, time and space, barrier has effects on what is possible
to study in the virtual world. The media has limits in the capacity of transferring data
from the people being studied to the researcher conducting the study.
Another difference is that the ethnographer can be totally invisible in a virtual
environment. In this way it can be easier to get access to a setting in a virtual
environment than to a setting in the real world. But if the researcher wants to participate
in the virtual community he/she will face the same problems as in the community of the
real world. This, that the researcher easily can be invisible in the virtual world, lead to a
discussion on ethics in research. This is something that is being discussed in the research
community and that the researcher who will do ethnography has to look in to before
conducting the research.
Who are you and can I trust you, are two questions that arise more in the virtual
environment then in the real world. One of the reasons is the small amount of data
verifying identity, which can be transferred in a virtual community compared with the
real world community. The person on the other side of the net can easily create a false
identity and deceive the researcher. To create a new identity in the real world takes a lot
more effort.
There is no difference in what type of roles that the researcher can take in the
setting. In both realities the ethnographer can be everything from participant to observer.
The difference in role is more on the level of how the actual work is being performed.
This easy access to false identity is one problem when it comes to do an interview
via the net. Another problem is that it easy to be and to do misinterpretations in the
virtual space. Even if both this problems exists as well in the real world they are harder to
manage in the virtual world.

6. References
Alvesson, Mats & Sköldberg, Kaj. Tolkning och reflektion. Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ
metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1994.
Austin, J. L.How to do things with words. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,
1962.
Boden, Deirdre. The business of talk. Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.
Czarniawska, Barbara. Narrating the organization. Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Dibbell, Julian. A rape in Cyberspace. The Village Voice, 1993.
Donath, Judith. Identity and deception in the virtual world, Smith, Mark & Kolloch, Peter (eds)
Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge, 1999.
Easterby-Smith, Mark., Thorpe, Richard., Lowe, Andy. Management Research, an introduction.
Saga Publications. London, 1991.
Fägerborg, Eva. Miljoner och my. Kunskapssyn och tänkande på en verkstadsindustri.
Stockholm: Nordiska museet, 1996.
Garfinkel, Harold. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity press, 1967.
Hamman, Robin. The Application of Ethnographic Methodology in the Study of Cybersex.
University of Liverpool http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/plummer.html 1999.
Hammersley, Martyn & Atkinson, Paul. Ethnography. Principles in practice. London: Routledge,
1995.
Kunda, Gideon. Engineering culture. Control and commitment in a high tech corporation.
Temple Univ Press, 1993.
McCracken, Grant. The long interview. Calif.: Sage.
Mynatt, D. Elizabeth., Adler, Annete., Ito, Mizuko., Linde, Charlotte., O´day, L., Vicki. The
Network Communities of SeniorNet. Proceedings of The Sixth European Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1999.
Orr, Julian. Talking about machines. An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell UP, 1996.
Paccagnella, Luciano. Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic
Research on Virtual Communities. JCM
http://jcmc.mscc.huji.ac.il/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html#baym92 ,1997.
Silverman, David. Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and inter-
action.London: Sage, 1993.
Zuboff, Shoshana. In the Age of the Smart Machine : The Future of Work and Power Basic
Books, 1989.