Computer-Mediated Anthropology
|
|
An Online Resource Center |
|
CMA METHODOLOGY: ONLINE-OFFLINE INTERVIEWS by Noah Porter, 2004 |
|
Face-to-face interactions, while possible and perhaps even welcomed as another source of data, are not necessary. I would like to dispel the notion of a hierarchy of desirability here in which face-to-face interaction is at the top and online interaction is at the bottom. Hakken (1999) notes: “Perhaps the special vulnerability of this fieldwork is related to a new kind of exposure, consequent to the speedy achievement of the apparent intimacy of face-to-face connection in the absence of the normal interactions patterns through which humans learn to trust each other” (p. 60). “Indeed even if a particularly industrious (not to mention affluent) researcher were to fly around the globe interviewing Net users in their various countries, he or she would be failing to view them in their Net habitat” (North 1994: 3.3.1). One example that has been pointed out where an online interview is superior (in terms of data collection and informant comfort) to in in-person interview is in the area of cybersex: Others suggest that there are certain advantages to interviewing people in their own environment. According to Hammersley and Atkinson, "interviewing them [respondents] on their own territory... is the best strategy. It allows them to relax much more than they would in less familiar surroundings." (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995, 150 brackets added) Online interviews provide the researcher of cyberspace the opportunity to observe people in their own surroundings. This can itself provide important data, such as giving the researcher an idea of the technical prowess of the respondent. It also, as Hammersley and Atkinson note above, allows the respondent to feel more at ease during the course of the interview. In fact, most of my respondents admit that they would not talk with me about cybersex (and the other issues it brings up such as solitary masturbation) if I were to interview them face to face. In contrast to this, in the online interviews that I completed, I found that nearly all respondents were almost immediately willing to speak about very intimate details of their sex lives. [Hamman 1997] Correll (1995) actually got a chance to compare and contrast her informants in “real life” after first interacting with them in a virtual setting, and she “was struck by how much more at ease these women were [online] than they were at a real bar at night” (p. 281). For her informants, the electronic bar was “more about making friends and talking and playing with each other,” while real bars are “where the games are for real” (p. 281). Similarly, Turkle writes: "Stewart [an informant] attended a series of pizza parties I held for MUDders in the Boston area. These were group sessions during which players had a chance to meet face to face and talk about their experiences. There stewart met a group of people who used the games to role-play characters from diverse cultures and time periods... Stewart told me he felt little in common with these players, and he also seemed uncomfortable around them" (p. 205). These findings agree with Bird (2003), who writes: “Although much of the sense of community derives from a conscious attempt to replicate ‘real-world’ connectedness, the nature of electronic communication adds an element that is quite distinctive” (p. 81-2). Turkle (1995) writes: "I have chosen not to report on my own findings unless I have met the Internet user in person rather simply in persona. I made this decision because of the focus of my research: how experiences in virtual reality affect real life an, more generally, on the relationship between the virtual and the real" (p. 324). Ben-Ze'ev (2003) claimed that "The relative anonymity of cyberspace desreases our vulnerability and so reduces the necessity for...secrecy in our private matters" (p. 452); ....getting emotionally closer in cyberspace does not necessarily mean revealing those private aspects that you want to remain private. Moreover, since vulnerability is significantly lessened in cyberspace, revealing private information is less harmful than in actual space As long as the relationship is limited to cyberspace, emotional closeness can be increased without risking one's privacy. When the relationship begins to involve features such as revealing real names and addresses, phone calls, exchange of pictures, writing letters, and face-to-face meetings, the conflict between emotional closeness and privacy emerges once again. [Ben-Ze'ev 2003: 457] I would like to offer the following list of points to consider in deciding whether to include offline interviews with online ones: · Is the offline context really relevant study? If a linguistic anthropologist were to study the use of Internet slang on a particular message board, observing the offline context would probably not be a worthwhile use of one's time. However, if an anthropologist wanted to study how time spent online impacted family life, it would probably help to physically be there. · Is it really possible to meet one's online informants? If an American anthropologist wanted to study Iraqi bloggers, for instance, it would probably be inadvisable to meet. Besides safety issues, international travel is not cheap. · How would the request to meet face-to-face be perceived? Does the online culture being studied have norms relating to whether or not meeting in person is done, who it is done with, where it is done, and when it is done? · Would the anthropologist's physical presence be welcome? If the anthropologist is studying teen sexuality, his or her presence would probably be less threatening to the parents and the teen informants if it is simply talk online rather than face-to-face. In other words, would the informants be as comfortable talking about the subject face-to-face? Hammn (1997) said that his informants would not have been willing to speak as frankly about cybersex if the interviews were not done on the Internet.(On the other hand, at least one journalist [Denizet-Lewis 2004] interviewed teens about this subject and from the article, and it sounded as though they were more concerned with whether they seemed like "losers" from a lack of promiscuous sexual relationships, rather than being concerned about admitting sexual activity!) · How will online interactions in the virtual community be handled after meeting face-to-face? If, as Ben-Ze'ev (2003) contends, emotional closeness occurs in cyberspace with greater control over information about the person is revealed, then is the anthropologist obligated to keep the details of the face-to-face meeting confidential because the informant has a reasonable expectation to retain that control over his or her presentation of self? Or, does the fact that he or she is willing to meet with the anthropologist tacitly give the anthropologist more leeway in how the person is represented? The answer, I think, might best emerge out of dialogue with the informant. If the informant is told what the anthropologist's impression was of their face-to-face meeting, he or she will have a reasonable expectation of what the anthropologist might say to the virtual community, and can approve or disapprove in advance. References Cited Ben-Ze'ev, Aaron Correll, Shelley Denizet-Lewis, Benoit Hamman, Robin Turkle, Sherry |
