Forberg Peter, Schilt Kristen
Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Front Sociol. 2023 Jun 2;8:1156776. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1156776. eCollection 2023.
When COVID-19 health guidelines vastly restricted or shut down in-person ethnographic research in 2020, many researchers pivoted to forms of online qualitative research using platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, and Discord. This growing body of qualitative internet research in sociology is often encapsulated under the umbrella term "digital ethnography." But the question of what makes digital qualitative research ethnographic remains open. In this article, we posit that digital ethnographic research necessitates a negotiation of the ethnographer's self-presentation and co-presence within the field that other forms of qualitative research, such as content or discourse analysis, do not require to satisfy their epistemological stance. To make our case, we provide a brief overview of digital research in sociology and related disciplines. Then, we draw upon our experiences conducting ethnographies in digital communities and in-person communities (what we call here, "analog ethnography") to explore how decisions about self-presentation and co-presence facilitate or block the generation of meaningful ethnographic data. We think through pertinent questions such as: Does the lower barrier for anonymity online justify disguised research? Does anonymity generate thicker data? How should digital ethnographers participate in research environments? What are the possible repercussions of digital participation? We argue that digital and analog ethnographies share a common epistemology that is distinct from non-participatory forms of qualitative digital research-namely the need for the researcher to relationally gather data from the field site over an extended period of time.
2020年，当新冠疫情防控指南极大地限制或叫停了实地人种志研究时，许多研究者转向了使用微信、推特和Discord等平台进行的在线定性研究形式。社会学领域中这一不断壮大的定性互联网研究群体，常被统称为“数字人种志”。但数字定性研究成为人种志研究的关键因素仍不明确。在本文中，我们认为数字人种志研究需要在研究领域内对研究者的自我呈现和共同在场进行协商，而内容分析或话语分析等其他形式的定性研究为满足其认识论立场则无需如此。为了阐明我们的观点，我们简要概述了社会学及相关学科中的数字研究。然后，我们借鉴在数字社区和实地社区进行人种志研究（我们在此称之为“模拟人种志”）的经验，探讨关于自我呈现和共同在场的决策如何促进或阻碍有意义的人种志数据的生成。我们思考了一些相关问题，例如：在线匿名的较低门槛是否能为伪装研究提供正当理由？匿名是否能产生更丰富的数据？数字人种志研究者应如何参与研究环境？数字参与可能会带来哪些影响？我们认为，数字人种志和模拟人种志有着共同的认识论，这与非参与式的定性数字研究形式不同，即研究者需要在较长时间内从实地现场以关联方式收集数据。
