Tres mentiras de la etnografía digital

Contenido principal del artículo

Gabriele de Seta

Resumen

La relativa novedad de la etnografía digital como metodología de investigación, junto con los desafíos que plantea a las aproximaciones clásicas del trabajo de campo, la participación y la representación, da como resultado un repertorio de ilusiones profesionales a través de las cuales los etnógrafos digitales justifican su trabajo cuando se enfrentan a la cultura disciplinaria de la antropología. Este ensayo está basado en la experiencia reflexiva del autor de investigar el uso de los medios digitales en China y actualiza el artículo de 1993 de Gary Alan Fine: "Diez mentiras de la etnografía", identificando tres mentiras de la etnografía digital. Ilustrando cada una de estas mentiras a través de una figura arquetípica: el “tejedor de campo en red”, el “ansioso participante-merodeador” y el “fabricador experto”. Este artículo defiende la necesidad de confrontar ilusiones metodológicas y aceptar las tensiones detrás de ellas como herramientas heurísticas para realizar investigaciones etnográficas sobre, a través y alrededor de los medios digitales.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
de Seta, G. (2021). Tres mentiras de la etnografía digital. Revista SOMEPSO, 6(2), 110-132. Recuperado a partir de https://revistasomepso.org/index.php/revistasomepso/article/view/111
Sección
Artículos
Biografía del autor/a

Gabriele de Seta

Posdoctorante en la Universidad de Bergen, Noruega.

Citas

Amit, V. (Ed.). (2000). Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the

contemporary world. Londres: Routledge.

Baym, N. K. (2009). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research? En:

A. N. Markham y N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about

method (pp.173–189). Londres: SAGE Publications.

Baym, N. K., y Markham, A. N. (2009). Introduction: Making smart choices on

shifting ground. In A. N. Markham y N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry:

Conversations about method (pp.vii–xix). Londres: SAGE Publications.

Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of

ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology, 18(2–3), 139–163.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0269172042000249264

Beaulieu, A. (2010). From co-location to co-presence: Shifts in the use of

ethnography for the study of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40(3),

– 470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709359219

Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth ❤social network sites: The role of networked publics

in teenage social life. En: D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital

media (pp.119–142). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data

collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information

Technology, 4(3), 217–231.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021316409277

Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity

and digital storytelling. Continuum: Journal of Media y Cultural Studies, 20(2),

–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310600641737

Burrell, J. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic

research. Field Methods, 21(2), 181–199. https://cutt.ly/vTl3Z5X

Clifford, J., y Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics

of ethnography. California: University of California Press.

Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The Lesbian Cafe. Journal

of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270–298.

https://doi.org/10.1177/089124195024003002

de Seta, G. (2015). Dajiangyou: Media practices of vernacular creativity in

postdigital China [Tesis doctoral]. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University.

Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., y Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative

Research, 6(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058876

Duneier, M. (2011). How not to lie with ethnography. Sociological Methodology,

(1), 1–11. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01249.x

Farnsworth, J., y Austrin, T. (2010). The ethnography of new media worlds?

Following the case of global poker. New Media y Society, 12(7), 1120–1136.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809355648

Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research.

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267–294.

https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022003001

Fine, G. A., y Shulman, D. (2009). Lies from the field: Ethical issues in organizational

ethnography. En S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, y F. Kamsteeg (Eds.),

Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life

(pp.177–195). Londres: SAGE Publications.

Geiger, R. S., y Ribes, D. (2011). Trace ethnography: Following coordination

through documentary practices. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference

on System Sciences, 1–10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.455

Hannerz, U. (2003). Being there. . . And there. . . And there! Reflections on multi-

site ethnography. Ethnography, 4(2), 201–216.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381030042003

Hastrup, K. (1990). The ethnographic present: A reinvention. Cultural

Anthropology, 5(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1990.5.1.02a00030

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Londres: SAGE Publications.

Hine, C. (2005). Research sites and strategies: Introduction. En: C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual

methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp.109–112). Oxford: Berg.

Hine, C. (2007). Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science. Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618–634.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00341.x

Hine, C. (2013). The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holmes, D. R., y Marcus, G. E. (2008). Para-ethnography. En: L. M. Given (Ed.), The

SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp.595–597). Londres:

Sage Publications.

Howard, P.N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization:

New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media y Society, 4(4),

–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144402321466813

Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of

Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.1.021

Ito, M. (1996). Theory, method, and design in anthropologies of the Internet.

Social Science Computer Review, 14(1), 24–26.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., y Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and

meaning in a networked culture. Nueva York: New York University Press.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Londres: Routledge.

Leander, K. M., y McKim, K. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday ‘sitings’ of adolescents

on the Internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and

offline spaces. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 211–240.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1463631032000092037

Levy, K. E. C. (2015). The user as network. First Monday, 20(11).

https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i11.6281

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of

multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.

Markham, A. N. (2012). Fabrication as ethical practice: Qualitative inquiry in

ambiguous Internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society, 15(3),

–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.641993

Moser, S. (2007). On disciplinary culture: Archaeology as fieldwork and its

gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3),

–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0816-007-9033-5

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Cyberspace, anthropological theory, and the training of

anthropologists. Social Science Computer Review, 14(1), 34–35.

O’Dell, T., y Willim, R. (2011). Composing ethnography. Ethnologia Europaea:

Journal of European Ethnology, 41(1), 27–39.

Orgad, S. (2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline

relationships with research informants. En C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods:

Issues in social research on the Internet (pp.51–65). Oxford: Berg.

Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for

ethnographic research on virtual communities. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00065.x

Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., y Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital

ethnography: Principles and practice. Londres: SAGE Publications.

Postill, J. (2017). Remote ethnography: Studying culture from afar. En L. Hjorth, H.

Horst, A. Galloway, y G. Bell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital

ethnography (pp.61–69). Londres: Routledge.

Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the network. The Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute, 2(3), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034901

Wittel, A. (2000). Ethnography on the move: From field to net to Internet. Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1).

https://cutt.ly/RTl8wT6