See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320928917

Digital Ethnography

Chapter · November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0271

CITATIONS READS

34 25,755

2 authors:

Satveer Kaur-Gill Mohan Jyoti Dutta

University of Nebraska at Lincoln Massey University
43 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS 264 PUBLICATIONS 7,614 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Satveer Kaur-Gill on 11 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Digital Ethnography
SATVEER KAUR-GILL and MOHAN J. DUTTA
National University of Singapore, Singapore

The diffusion of digital media into our daily lives has opened up opportunities for ethno-
graphers to inquire the novel communicative phenomena taking place in diverse ways
across different online and offline spaces. The presence of digital media in our everyday
spheres has redefined the ways in which we come to express our identities, represen-
tations, routine undertakings, and experiences (Coleman, 2010). Digital technologies
such as mobile phones, digital television, radio, camcorders, and laptops have allowed
the average individual to capture, obtain, and share information in groundbreaking
ways. To give an example, digital imaging and recording has made it possible to fast
share, store, and distribute information with the click of a button. The advent of the
Internet (such as virtual communities, forums, chatrooms) has made it possible to reach
communities that were difficult or impossible to engage with before (Dicks, 2005). It has
also opened up spaces for communities from all over the world traversing different cul-
tures and communities to connect in novel ways through new media such as chatrooms,
virtual communities, and social media. This had led to interesting and new questions
about using current methods to study the sphere of the digital. Digital ethnography is
a method used to address questions of the social on digitized spaces. In other words,
digital ethnography encompasses ethnography of virtual spaces (virtual ethnography),
cyberspace ethnography, ethnography of new media, online ethnography, and social
media/new media ethnography.
Digital ethnography, a method situated under the paradigm of interpretivism, has
its roots in ethnography, and is a field of study that falls under the broader umbrella
of anthropology. The epistemological roots of ethnography signify its commitment to
“telling social stories” (Murthy, 2008, p. 837). Ethnographers set out to make sense of
the lived experiences and the meanings ascribed by individuals through the examina-
tion of their everyday realities and the interpretation of these lived experiences (Pink
et al., 2016). Ethnography is typically conducted over extended periods of time through
participant observations with communities and deep interactions with community
members. In the process, rich, “thick descriptions” of a community’s lived realities are
produced in the form of journaled field notes (Bailey, 2007; Coleman, 2010; Geertz,
1973; Murthy, 2008). Ethnography recognizes that the researcher cannot be separated
from the context, shaping it through her/his participation in and interaction with the
community, and in her/his interpretation of the data. The intention and purpose of
ethnography is to interrogate the knowledge shared by others, highlighting the value of
learning from different ways of knowing and understanding, as opposed to capturing
meanings in narrow ways or making broad generalizations of experiences (Coleman,
The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Jörg Matthes (General Editor),
Christine S. Davis and Robert F. Potter (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0271
2 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y

2010). The goal of ethnography is to depict holistically the cultural membership in a

community, culture being the essence of the contribution when doing ethnography
(Singer, 2009), online or offline.
The field has constantly expanded and become more diverse over the years. This
has led to a disjuncture regarding approaches to ethnography and the ways in which
it should be conducted (Small, 2009). Having provided an overview of the epistemo-
logical commitments of ethnography and the emerging debates and departures, this
entry will begin by providing a comprehensive overview of digital ethnography and
key considerations for ethnographers when conducting digital ethnography, and then
engage with the debates and criticisms of this emerging method of study.

What is digital ethnography?

An offshoot of ethnography, digital ethnography is a method of “representing real-life

cultures through combining the characteristic features of digital media with the
elements of story” (Underberg & Zorn, 2013, p. 10). For example, virtual worlds on
digital platforms are an example of cultural realities existing in the online sphere that
are worthy of ethnographic insight. Ethnographic inquiry in the sphere of the digital
is a method for enhancing understandings of meanings, and how they come to be
assigned to technology and, the cultural experiences that enable and are enabled by
the digital medium (Hine, 2000). For example, doing ethnographic work on a digital
medium can entail studying specific chatrooms, discussion groups, or observing virtual
realities. Experiential observations of the Internet, unlike typical ethnographies do not
involve physical travel, instead they take place sitting in front of a computer at home or
at work. The digital ethnographer takes on the role of processing the collection of texts
and graphics made available on digital mediums, and engages in making sense of the
meanings portrayed through texts or graphics. This is done by reading the texts, and
also by engaging in the texts through writing. Boellstorff, Nardi, Pearce, and Taylor
(2013) inform that ethnographies digitally, often begin with visits informally to the sites
of interest. Based on that observation or interaction, the ethnographer comes to decide
her/his research question. The study of culture of a community on a specific virtual
reality site is one such example. Pearce (2009) studies play culture in multiplayer games
existing in virtual reality, discussing the role of community formations that take place in
the process of playing these games over a period of time. McLelland (2002) uses virtual
ethnography as a means of studying gay culture among Japanese and foreign men in
Japan and makes the argument that in a physical world, divided by markers of territory,
the advent of the digital medium opens up opportunities for the building of social
relations that would have previously been impossible to mitigate. This creates a useful
space to study the rise of new social relationships existing in the online sphere. The chal-
lenges, but also benefits of using digital ethnography, unlike traditional ethnography is
that the digital medium—the field site of inquiry—cuts across geographic boundaries
and divisions of space and societal structures of hierarchy and power, national and
political boundaries, and educational divisions, all of which play out more prominently
in physical spaces. The goal of digital ethnography is in trying to understand relational
 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y 3

and behavioral patterns and orders in the digital sphere. When conducting ethnogra-
phy in the digital realm, self-identities, social relations, and the structure of cyberspace
are all relevant areas of inquiry (Hakken, 1999). To expand further, an important
element of ethnography is in capturing how self-identity is formed, structured, and
expressed on digitally based platforms. Studying the way one comes to make sense of
him or herself, is the study of self-identity, an important process of ethnography. Let
us look at self-identity as an example of an area of ethnographic inquiry. Anonymity
online allows for an individual to take different forms, avatars, or roles when acting in
a digital space, different from one’s real identity offline. Ethnographic studies in this
area, try to make sense of new identity constructions online, seeking to comprehend
identity change and online personas on digital mediums. Digital ethnographers may
ask, what do changing self-identities mean for particular groups residing in the online
space? To demonstrate, Campbell (2004) observes Internet relay chatrooms (IRC)
in order to study the negotiation of identities by gay men, through the use of new
communication technologies. Kendall (2002) studies how masculinity is enacted in a
virtual pub, and how social relationships in the virtual pub are enacted. Gajjala (2004)
using feminist ethnography, studies cyberspaces where South Asian women enact their
changing identities in what she terms as “feminist safe spaces online” (p. 1). Numerous
ethnographic accounts of shifting identities online have been conducted since the
advent of digital platforms, reflecting the power of the digital space in allowing for the
enactment of desired identities that one is unable to construct in the offline space.
Besides the study of identity online, Hakken (1999) directs digital ethnographers to
study social relations on three levels, one that inquires the “network-oriented” nature
of the interactions (micro-level), and the other looking at “dynamics of communities”
(p. 21) that are reproduced online (meso-level). Finally, at the macro-level, digital
ethnographers should ask questions about macro-cultural and social relations that
include how power enacts itself through the structures of cyberspace (Garcia, Standlee,
Bechkoff, & Cui, 2009; Hakken, 1999). An example of studying macro-level relations in
digital spaces through ethnography includes asking questions about the nature of polit-
ical and economic power and its reproduction in digital mediums. For instance, Dutta
(2012) examines the participatory spaces and processes of resistance in youth-based
social movements that have a significant online component, drawing attention to the
interplays of the online and offline. With notions of space dissembled and concepts of
spatiality obscured because of the advent of the digital, what are the possible implica-
tions for the future? Digital ethnographies of the macro broadly answer these questions.

Doing digital ethnography

Digital ethnography allows for the researcher to work with a method that is flexible
in responding to novel and developing phenomena (Boellstorf et al., 2013). It is also
particularly insightful when inquiring about the rich existence of cultural life and rep-
resentation taking place on digital platforms. Hine (2002) aptly describes the Internet
as culture and cultural artefact, and a space where social interaction of all sorts occurs.
Therefore, this is a space where doing ethnography can be most useful. Precisely because
4 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y

there are many nodes and factions of doing ethnography online, and having to identify
the many sites of data, the researcher must begin by thinking through the key tenets
of ethnography (Figaredo et al., 2007). Conducting digital ethnography requires the
researcher to think through the central concepts of the method. This includes being
clear about why one wants to conduct an ethnography of the digital in the first place, fol-
lowed by acknowledging critically the concept of fieldwork that is synonymous with the
method. Also, ethnography, drawing from an emic perspective, requires the researcher
to address her/his relationship with the field, since the heart of ethnography lies with
being in the field, experientially online or physically in the site. This means record-
ing field notes, participant observations, reflections, and interim reports during time in
the field. Tools of ethnography often involve both obtrusive participation and unobtru-
sive observation, often requiring the researcher to conduct structured or unstructured
interviews among those residing in the field sites for more in-depth understandings
of behaviors. This section lays out the considerations involved for the ethnographer to
think about, before conducting online ethnography.
Identifying the field site. There is also a recognition that the field sites when doing
ethnography on digital spaces are often convoluted, precisely because of the traditional
boundaries and geographies of space and power that tend to be murky and unclear. This
is not to say power is not present in the online sphere, but recognizing the elements of
power online maybe far more convoluted as compared to identifying and working in
a physical field site. Identifying the field site in digital spaces can be complicated with
many different values, beliefs, customs, and behaviors that coexist online. Much of the
difficulty for the digital ethnographer lies in trying to identify the confluence of differ-
ent nodes of information as specific constructs online. In traditional ethnography this
often just involves identifying a physical space. Even within the context of traditional
ethnography, the researcher has to sufficiently justify questions of sample represen-
tativeness and inclusion criteria when selecting a site (Pink et al., 2016). Include the
element of the online space, and these questions become even more contentious, but
remain relevant. In order to defend the approach, digital ethnographers must be savvy
enough to understand the medium they are using to engage as a field site. For example,
if the aim of the ethnographer is to study a virtual community online, s/he must be able
to comprehend the nature of how the digital technology manifests among its users, the
interface of the medium, and what economies that technology serves. The ethnogra-
pher must also be cognizant of how the media are used in diverse ways that may/may
not reproduce elements of power and its institutions.
Issues of public and private. The researcher must also think about how the public and
the private are constituted online (Jensen, 2012). The online space makes indistinguish-
able the boundaries between the private and the public, which poses important ethical
questions for the ethnographer to address. Roberts, Smith, and Pollock (2004) add to
the ethnographer’s dilemma, suggesting that the researcher’s accessibility to the site does
not determine what is considered public or private space. Despite the online space being
a medium of public accessibility, correspondences between researcher and participant
are deemed private. Waskul and Douglass (1996) further add that the researcher should
not determine what spaces are deemed private or public in order to meet their research
agenda, but instead should look at the nature of the study and its level of intrusiveness,
 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y 5

given the nature of the medium and the number of individuals involved. Ethnogra-
phers should not assume that online material is equivalent to mass media material
offline and belongs in the “public” sphere. Doring (2002) considers that spaces online
can be considered private and logging in anonymously to group discussions online is
no different than listening in or audio-recording a private conversation taking place
in a public space, such as listening in to strangers’ conversations at an eating house.
Doring (2002) suggests that such behavior violates privacy laws and would be con-
sidered unethical. The digital ethnographer therefore must be privy to these concerns
and ensure the community he or she is studying would not be disadvantaged by the
anonymity of the researcher during the study. Different studies have reflected the role
that identity and anonymity play when doing ethnography online. Ayers (2004) found
that disclosing his male identity when studying social movements involving feminist
activists, led to some interview responses that were inauthentic. Hine (2000) cautions
that even the name with which one chooses to represent oneself online can be very
important because he found that it affected the responses from participants, with gen-
der neutral sounding names producing different effects as compared to situations where
the gender was identifiable. Nonetheless, Hine (2005) maintains that one must always
disclose one’s intentions of conducting a study to participants before collecting data,
whether remaining anonymous or when using hidden identities (Hine, 2005). Again,
these studies are contextual but these points serve as important reminders to digital
ethnographers to think through the consequences of identity and anonymity for any
study conducted in the online sphere.
To be or not to be obtrusive. Another important consideration when doing dig-
ital ethnography includes addressing the contention regarding the ethnographer
and her/his proximity, and physical presence during the ethnography. This can be
problematic considering that in traditional ethnography, the researcher often is an
identifiable observer by the community. In some ethnographies, the researcher in
question interacts and dialogues with the community they study, forming deep and
lasting relationships. The identity in both situations are disclosed. Bengtsson (2014)
reviews questions of proximity and distance when doing ethnography on digital
media, suggesting that the ethnographer is an embodied subject. He clarifies that the
researcher is just as invested in the ethnographic process, with bodies of researchers
integrated in the research process. Their lived experiences and stories are there to
be present and accepted as part of the observation and interpretation. Therefore, the
process of ethnography also requires the deep engagement of researchers. However,
because the digital medium allows for the researcher to remain anonymous, unob-
trusive, and sometimes a completely inconspicuous observer, this has led to different
debates on how a researcher should negotiate his or her role in doing ethnography
in digitized spaces. Precisely because the role of the researcher is key in the research
process, the ethnographer must be able to “manage their identity and presentation of
self in visual and textual media and do impression management via CMC modalities
such as e-mail, chat, and instant messaging” (Garcia et al., 2009, p. 53).
Additionally, observation, a critical tenet of ethnographic research can change
during the research process. When doing online research, observation entails studying
the visuals and text featured on the digital medium, and often requires getting
6 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y

involved and actively participating with users. This is dependent on how the researcher
positions oneself during the ethnography. To demonstrate, Walstrom (2004) and
Garcia et al. (2009) discuss the propensity for researchers to get involved with the
participants, depending on the researcher having specific experiences that are relevant
and meaningful to the research that contributes to their involvement during the
ethnography (Garcia et al., 2009; Walstrom, 2004). Digital ethnographers can also lurk
for “completely unobtrusive observation” (p. 59). In some online spaces, the nature
of the medium allows for the researcher to be completely inconspicuous, also known
as “cyberstealth” (Ebo, 1998) while on other digital spaces, the researcher is known to
be present, but still anonymous. There are different schools of thought on the ethics
and purpose of lurking in doing ethnography that need to be considered, including
protecting the privacy of the participants involved. Bell (2001) discusses the role of
“lurking” from an ethnographic perspective, as a linear process with no engagement
with participants in the field. This is an example of unobtrusive observation while con-
ducting ethnography. However, Bell (2001) argues that part of the method’s strength
is in recognizing the value of dialogue and participation with the community for
collaborative outcomes, as opposed to merely appropriating the narratives observed.
In fact, engagement with community members in the field can be far more valuable
in gaining authentic first-hand insight, than merely observing them without the rich,
thick description of stories you obtain through participation and engagement.
At the same time, announcing one’s presence can often cause a shift in behaviors
that are meant to be naturally occurring. Some ethnographers suggest the usefulness
of beginning the ethnography by “lurking” online (Kozinets, 2002) because it helps the
researcher ask relevant questions later. Additionally, the role of the ethnographer and
her/his presence, anonymous or otherwise, can often affect the kind of data collected.
Two issues that must be discussed when doing ethnography on digital spaces is the iden-
tity of the researcher and how the researcher negotiates anonymity on the online space.

Criticism of digital ethnography

Despite the variety, scale, and prevalent use of digital media in our lives today, studying
digitized mediums and spaces using the ethnographic method has been met with
a fair amount of criticism. Even though digital technology has become part of the
everyday lived experiences of groups and individuals in society, scholars cast some
doubt on the usefulness and purpose of digital ethnography. For example, there have
been key debates regarding Castells’ (1996) discussion of the advent of digital media
and technologies, and its re-creation of new ways of understanding the world. Castells
(1996) suggests that digital media are “fundamentally altering the way we are born,
we live, we sleep, we produce, we consume, we dream, we fight, or we die” (p. 31). This
has been met with contention from others (e.g., Coleman, 2010; Miller & Slater, 2000)
describing digital technologies as just a mere expansion of our cultural and social
realities. Other criticisms include debunking the propensity to cast digital technologies
as neutral to the concepts of power or as a medium with the capacity to bring about
social change (Hakken, 1999). Extending this criticism to the use of ethnography
 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y 7

online, anthropologists have been circumspect in incorporating ethnographic methods

to the study of online communities. Noting this, digital ethnographers have criticized
how digital ethnography has been left out of core ethnographic readings and syllabi
(Bailey, 2007; Coleman, 2010; Murthy, 2008). Some definitions of ethnography today
still only define ethnography as “face-to-face” observations (Bailey, 2007), dismissing
the blurring lines of technology that mediate our everyday lives (Murthy, 2008).
Contentions still exist on what constitutes the real world, with different interpretations
regarding where the online space lies in terms of our lived realities. Some argue that
the online realm is not part of the “real world” because the composition and nature
of the virtual world is noncomparable to how the real world actually functions (Hine,
2000; Lysloff, 2003), while others (e.g., Garcia et al., 2009; Lyman & Wakeford, 1999;
Rieken, Garcia-Sanchez, Trujillo, & Bear, 2015) note that online virtual realities are not
distinct from physical aspects of lived action and experience, but a part of that storied
life. Thus, it is critical for ethnographers to think about their research based on the
phenomenon being inquired (research question), as opposed to precluding aspects of
online behavior and experience peremptorily (Campbell, 2004; Garcia et al., 2009).
Spitulnik (1993) critiques the method as incomplete because the researcher does
not get to truly observe the physical day-to-day rituals of the participants, with no
real immersion in their social worlds. Additionally, conducting digital ethnography
only entails interviewing participants within their domestic setting, only providing a
one-dimensional perspective to the narratives told. The debate on digital ethnography
and the identification of the research site online must be addressed. For example,
Garcia et al. (2009) provide examples of how research studies online must begin by
narrowing down field sites to where the social phenomenon is situated. For example,
some support groups only exist online and as a result, the ethnography can only be
conducted online. Walstrom’s (2004) study is one such example, where the researcher
studies individuals with eating disorders who find support exclusively from online
sites. Other social phenomena include some element of tossing between the online
and offline world; though mostly online, some relationships do translate into offline
encounters. Digital or virtual ethnography can exist on dual platforms where both
computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face observations are sites of
ethnographic inquiry. Examples of research in this area include the study of homosex-
ual men and their use of online chat rooms to seek out partners, or sexual relationships,
or friendships in the offline space (Correll, 1995). In the field of digital ethnography,
one of the most understudied areas is on the impact of digital technologies, offline.
Thus far, Bakardjieva’s (2005) study is one of the few studies that have been conducted
where the ethnographer studies the role of a computer at home and its impact on
family dynamics, including parental duties in the offline space (Garcia et al., 2009). All
of these phenomena are worthy of ethnographic inquiry as they can tell us more about
the ways in which communities, and their nodes and networks are enacted with the
inclusion of our digital lives in our everyday lived experiences.
All of these positions on digital ethnography need to be considered, specifically to
understand the weaknesses and strengths of conducting ethnographies on and in the
digital world. Paying attention to the various assertions by different scholars, challenges
digital ethnographers to think further about the field and the importance of correctly
8 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y

conceptualizing core contentions. This include concepts of immersion in online com-

munities, making a strong case on the existence of social phenomena online that entails
ethnographic inquiry as an important method of study, and most importantly, to con-
sider the gaps that currently exist in the field of digital ethnography and address them
clearly, with strong justifications for why the online space and the phenomena involved
are representations of the lived experiences of different elements of our social lives
that are worthy of interpretation. As digital technologies continue to pervade our daily
lives, and manifest in our interactions, relationships, and relational communicative
practices, it becomes all the more important to study the interpretive processes that are
constituted by these technologies. Digital ethnography has already contributed signif-
icantly to understanding communicative phenomena taking place in a mediated world
of technology. The advent of digital technology has posed interesting conundrums for
ethnographers in considering the inclusion of digital technologies, which have become
very much part of the lived realities and shifting conceptions of self, culture, and
community. With new meanings and practices ascribed to these emerging mediums in
experiences of communities, it is impossible to ignore the relevance and implications
these technologies have for social, cultural, economic, and political forms of organizing.

SEE ALSO: Ethnography of Communication; Ethnography/Ethnographic Meth-

ods; Qualitative Methodology; Qualitative Research Question; Rigor in Qualitative
Research; Thick Description; Video Ethnography

References

Ayers, M. D. (2004). Fact or fiction: Notes of a man interviewing women online. In E. A.

Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 1–12). Her-
shey, PA: Information Science Pub.
Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London: SAGE.
Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. New York: Routledge.
Bengtsson, S. (2014). Faraway, so close! Proximity and distance in ethnography online. Media,
Culture & Society, 36, 862–877. doi:10.1177/0163443714531195
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. (2013). Words with friends: Writing collabora-
tively online. New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Campbell, J. E. (2004). Getting it on online: Cyberspace, gay male sexuality, and embodied identity.
New York: Harrington Park Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Coleman, E. G. (2010). Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy, 39, 487–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104945
Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The lesbian cafe. Journal of Contempo-
rary Ethnography, 24, 270–298. doi:10.1177/089124195024003002
Dicks, B. (2005). Qualitative research and hypermedia: Ethnography for the digital age. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Doring, N. (2002). Studying online love and cyber romance. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M.
Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 233–356). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y 9

Dutta, M. J. (2012). Voices of resistance: Communication and social change. West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University Press.
Ebo, B. L. (1998). Cyberghetto or cybertopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Figaredo, D. D., Beaulieu, A., Estalella, A., Gómez, E., Schnettler, B., & Read, R. (2007). Virtual
ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3).
Gajjala, R. (2004). Cyber selves: Feminist ethnographies of South Asian women. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the
Internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38,
52–84. doi:10.1177/0891241607310839
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Hakken, D. (1999). Cyborgs@cyberspace?: An ethnographer looks at the future. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: SAGE
Hine, C. (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. New York: Berg.
Jensen, K. B. (2012). A handbook of media and communication research: Qualitative and quanti-
tative methodologies. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.39.1.61.18935
Lyman, P., & Wakeford, N. (1999). Introduction: Going into the (virtual) field. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 43, 359–376. doi:10.1177/00027649921955317
Lysloff, R. T. A. (2003). Musical community on the Internet: An online ethnography. Cultural
Anthropology, 18, 233–263. doi:10.1525/can.2003.18.2.233
McLelland, M. J. (2002). Virtual ethnography: Using the Internet to study gay culture in Japan.
Sexualities, 5, 387–406. doi:10.1177/1363460702005004001
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social
research. Sociology, 42, 837–855. doi:10.1177/0038038508094565
Pearce, C. (2009). Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography:
Principles and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Roberts, L., Smith, L., & Pollock, C. (2004). Conducting ethical research online: Respect for indi-
viduals, identities and the ownership of words. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Virtual research ethics:
Issues and controversies (pp. 156–173.). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.
Rieken, J., Garcia-Sanchez, E., Trujillo, M. P., & Bear, D. (2015). Digital ethnography and the
social dimension of introspection: An empirical study in two Colombian schools. Integrative
Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 253–274. doi:10.1007/s12124-015-9299-1
Singer, J. B. (2009). Ethnography. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 191–198.
doi:10.1177/107769900908600112
Small, M. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in
field-based research. Ethnography, 10, 5–38. doi:10.1177/1466138108099586
Spitulnik, D. (1993). Anthropology and mass media. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22,
293–315. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.22.100193.001453
Underberg, N. M., & Zorn, E. (2013). Digital ethnography: Anthropology, narrative, and new
media (1st ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
 10 D I G I TA L E T H N O G R A P H Y

Walstrom, M. K. (2004). Ethics and engagement in communication scholarship: Analyzing pub-

lic online support groups as researcher/participant-experiencer. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.),
Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 174–202). Hershey, PA: Infor-
mation Science Pub.
Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical
observations on the ethics of on-line research. Information Society, 12, 129–139. doi:10.1080/
713856142

Further reading

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(5th ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Boellstorff, T. (2013). Digital anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A
handbook of method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: SAGE.
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social
research. Sociology, 42, 837–855. doi:10.1177/0038038508094565
Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography:
Principles and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Satveer Kaur-Gill is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Communications and

New Media, National University of Singapore. Her research mainly entails ethnogra-
phies of disenfranchised communities in Singapore. Her latest publication in the area
of ethnography locates the meanings of health information seeking among the Singa-
porean population.

Mohan J. Dutta is provost’s chair professor and head of the Department of Com-
munications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), adjunct
professor at the Interactive Digital Media Institute (IDMI) at NUS, and courtesy
professor of communication at Purdue University. At NUS, he is the founding director
of the Center for Culture-Centered Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE),
directing research on culturally centered, community-based projects of social change.
He teaches and conducts research in international health communication, critical
cultural theory, poverty in health care, health activism in globalization politics,
indigenous cosmologies of health, subaltern studies and dialogue, and public policy
and participatory social change.

View publication stats