A key example of digital ethnography is using social media as a research space. This is seen though the everyday routines of digital ethnography practice, where part of an individual’s life is on the internet using social media, but it is not a virtual experience as it is connected to the material world. This social ethnography practice consists of five sub-practices through: catching up, sharing, exploring, interacting and archiving. Through exploring tweets and feeds as potential research sites it allows digital ethnographers to embark on short exploratory trips, by interacting with participants though online encounters. However, digital ethnographers must practice media-switching and media-mixing to maintain social relationships with participants across time and space.

 

When conducting digital ethnography there are five key principles to remember. The first is multiplicity, this is how the digital platforms open up to a new form of research and how it influences its producers. Next is non-digital-centric-ness which approaches de-centre media as the focus of media research, in order to acknowledge ways in which media are inseparable from the other activities, technologies and feelings of how they are used and experienced. Meaning digital ethnography and digital methods should always be developed and designed specifically in relation to the particular research question asked. Openness is also important, as it characterises the design process as open-ended, allowing digital ethnography to be a collaborative process. The fourth principle is reflexivity, which is the ways ethnographers produce knowledge through their encounters making a positive process to produce ways of knowing and finding out about people’s lives and experiences. Lastly, unorthodox, which explore how new digital ways of communication creates a new visual way of undertaking and displaying research as opposed to traditional monographic written forms. Therefore, enabling continuity between digital ethnography fieldwork, ongoing collaborations and dialogues with research participants. This demonstrates how digital ethnography enables the researcher to go beyond academia and standard written production.

 

There is a debate around the future of digital ethnography. Some believe a different approach is needed for it, focusing on a plural concept of sociality that allows us to focus on relatedness in online and offline relationships that would lead to a better understanding of how social media practices are engaging with one another. Yet, digital ethnography is important for gaining a sense of the shifting intensities of the social media landscape as it emerges online but also how it is interwoven offline. When conducting digital ethnography, the method should not be viewed as a ‘one size fits all’ approach, but instead it would adjust depending on the concept being researched. It is still an emergent field of theory and practice, which allows individuals to develop their own understanding to develop their own digital ethnography approaches.

 

Overall I found the readings interesting, and found myself comparing the methods of digital ethnography to that of traditional ethnography. During the next weekly task, I would be interested to see the differences when conducing digital ethnography, as it seems that the personal element is slightly eliminated. However, as I am in a generation raised with social media, using it as a research platform might be easier, as it is an environment I feel comfortable in. I feel this reading has set a good foundation on which I can continue to build my knowledge though completing researching the digital task.