Tracing Communicative Patterns

A comparative ethnography across platforms, media and contexts

Open access

Abstract

This article outlines a research design for a qualitative comparative study of communication across platforms, media and contexts – in China, the US and Denmark. After addressing the limitations in previous research on digital media in everyday life, we argue in favour of a comparative ethnography of communication that emphasizes the study of intermediality by taking a people-centred approach. The methodological design combines network sampling and maximum variation sampling with communication diaries and elicitation interviews. This design makes it possible to collect small and deep communicative trace data, to capture individuals’ unique linking of all the communication tools and channels available to them and, in turn, to identify the role of the internet as it interacts and intersects with other forms of communication.

Anderson, K., Nafus, D., Rattenbury, T. & Aipperspach, R. (2009). Numbers have qualities too: Experiences with ethno-mining. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 1: 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-8918.2009.tb00133.x

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10218047

Baym, N. K. (2000). Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10582332

Beneito-Montagut, R. (2011). Ethnography goes online: Towards a user-centred methodology to research interpersonal communication on the Internet. Qualitative Research, 11(6): 716-735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111413368

boyd, D. (2006). Friends, friendsters, and top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Burrell, J. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, 21(2): 181-199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08329699

Carter, S. & Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: The role of media in diary studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’05 (pp. 899-908). New York, NY: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055098

Cook, J., Laidlaw, J. & Mair, J. (2009). What if there is no elephant? Towards a conception of an un-sited field. In M. A. Falzon (ed.), Multi-sited ethnography, theory, praxis and locality in contemporary social research. New York: Routledge.

Couldry, N., Livingstone, S. & Markham, T. (2007). Media consumption and public engagement – Beyond the presumption of attention. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

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(1): 52-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241607310839

Geddes, A., Parker, C. & Scott, S. (2017). When the snowball fails to roll and the use of “horizontal” networking in qualitative social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 0(0): 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1406219

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360-1380.

Gundelach, P., Nielsen, R. S. & Frederiksen, M. (2014). Mixed methods-forskning, principper og praksis. 1. udgave. Samfundsvidenskabernes metoder <>. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.

Hargittai, E. & Karr, C. (2009). WAT R U DOIN? Studying the thumb generation using text messaging. In E. Hargittai (ed.), Methods from the trenches. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://www.kriso.ee/methods-from-trenches-db-9780472070268.html

Hasebrink, U. & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 9(2): 757-779.

Heckathorn, D. D. & Cameron, C. J. (2017). Network sampling: From snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1): 101-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevsoc-060116-053556

Helles, R. (2011). Hverdagslivets nye medier. Dansk Sociologi, 21(3): 49-63.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology, from the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge & Malden. Polity Press.

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Intermediality. In W. Donsbach (ed.), International encyclopedia of communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1987). The end of organized capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ling, R. & Lai, C.-H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication, August. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12251

Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6(3): 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00140.x

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24 (1): 95-117.

Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek, CA. Altamira Press.

Markham, T. & Couldry, N. (2007). Tracking the reflexivity of the (dis)engaged citizen: Some methodological reflections. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5): 675-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407301182

Marwick, A. E. & boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7): 1051-1067. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995

Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S. & Wang, X. (2016). How the world changed social media. Why we post. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=604151

Miller, D. & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.

Morse, J. M. & Niehaus, L. (2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Milton, Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=4586791

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4): 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Poels, K., Ijsselsteijn, W. A. & de Kort, Y. (2015). World of Warcraft, the aftermath: How game elements transfer into perceptions, associations and (day)dreams in the everyday life of massively multiplayer online role-playing game players. New Media & Society, 17(7): 1137-1153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521596

Radway, J. A. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill, US: The University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10355395

Silverstone, R. (2006). Domesticating domestication: Reflections on the life of a concept. In T. Berker, Hartmann, M., Punie, Y. & Ward, K. J. (eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 229-248). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Retrieved from http://mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup

Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. & Morley, D. (1994). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (eds.), Consuming technologies, media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.

Simon, J. & Ess, C. (2015). The ONLIFE initiative–A concept reengineering exercise. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1): 157-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0189-8.

Slater, D. (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offline. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 533-546). London, UK: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.co.uk

Thorhauge, A. M. & Lomborg, S. (2016). Cross-media communication in context: A mixed-methods approach. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 32(60): 16. doi: https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v32i60.22090

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. 1. Touchstone ed. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Zimmerman, D. H. & Wieder, D. L. (1977). The diary: Diary–interview method. Urban Life, 5(4): 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124167700500406.

Nordicom Review

Journal from the Nordic Information Centre for Media and Communication Research (Nordicom)

Journal Information


CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.270


Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 87 87 30
PDF Downloads 75 75 22