Hine ends her email query asking peoeple about their "offline contexts" with thanks and an apology to her perspective respondents (p. 75-76). And I was struck, while reading both Hine's chapter and Thomas' paper, how important it is in virtual ethnographic studies to approach participants on their own terms. Not just using their nicknames or their language in your communication, as is particularly noticeable in the way Thomas respects the online identities of the children in her study, but, more simply, the fact that that communication is itself virtual. Since you want to know about children online, you have to actually go in there and see what they do online.
After presenting her list of initial questions, Hine offers a compelling rationale for 'restricting' herself to online interactions, in part by suggesting that this limited focus is not a restriction at all; there may not even be a boundary between offline and online identities. While acknowledging this openness and permeability has potential hazards—that answers and identities may be misrepresented or fabricated—it's crucial to understanding the context behind those answers and identities.
* * *
Later, I was struck by a particular diptych of quotes, during Hine's reflection on her interaction with Campaign for Justice webmaster Peter: "that even behind web sites which give no clues to the identity of their producers there were individuals with biographies, emotions and commitments" and, in the next paragraph, "this ethnography is about what the Internet made Louise" (p. 80). The key words in these statements, for me, are "behind" and "made." They seem to be contradictory; how is it that an identity could exist 'in spite of' (as the first quote suggests, as if the web site is a mask to hide behind)
and 'because of' online interactions? This paradoxical struggle seems central to understanding online identities, where issues of 'real'-ness and authenticity are questions of portrayals and portrayers.
No comments:
Post a Comment