Under Construction: Chapter Five

Fieldwork

5.1 Always Home for Tea - Ethnography in Cyberspace

As part of the process of research into electronic or virtual communities and culture in cyberspace, I decided to join or participate in a number of forms of Computer-Mediated Communication, all of which are reputed to create some sense of community on the Internet. Turkle points out that for anthropologists,

the experience of dépaysement is one of the most powerful elements of fieldwork. One leaves one’s own culture to face something unfamiliar, and upon returning home it has become strange - and can be seen with fresh eyes. [1]

During the research period of over seven months, I needed neither passport nor mosquito net. Although I took a good number of notes, and sent many e-mails correspondences ‘from the door of my tent’, I rarely needed to leave the comfort of my own house, let alone my own culture, and could always stop for tea. This is clearly a radically different experience of fieldwork than the traditional view of ‘exotic’ locations and peanut butter cravings.

However, that is not to say that the experience was altogether easy. As a result of already having extensive experience with computers and the Internet, there was no great difficulty in dealing with the technology involved in my particular research. I am also privileged to be a native speaker of English, the main language of communication in cyberspace. Although my gender meant I was part of a minority group on the Internet, the relative anonymity provided by CMC meant that this did not cause me any great difficulties.

The main difficulty I experienced, however, was in getting members of my ‘real-life’ communities (both academic and social) to accept that what I was doing was actually worthwhile research, and therefore work. The Internet and its various functions and guises are generally considered to be a leisure pursuit, and a fairly fruitless one at that. In this country, it was my experience that anyone who admits to using the Internet for anything more than sending and receiving e-mails and perhaps downloading software (games, etc.) is portrayed by the popular media as a ‘geek’[2], and viewed by the general public as being quite laughable. In other words, use of the Internet is viewed as being a frivolous, expendable activity, and one which is certainly not worthy or academic investigation. My justification to those who made the above claim was that any situation which involves the interaction of humans in symbolic and social ways, and in which participants skilfully juggle issues of identity, culture and community surely merits an anthropological approach.

The environments or applications in which I chose to participate and/or observe took five quite different forms (Mailing list; Internet Relay Chat; Newsgroups; E-Mail; Conferencing), and were five extremely different experiences of social interaction. Methodology was a large concern. Although I was aware of (and had limited experience of) the process of ethnographic fieldwork in which anthropologists inevitably participate, I was unsure how to best apply its methods and tools to the virtual world. In some ways, ethnography in cyberspace is made somewhat easier by the fact that it is possible to record (’log’) conversations and interviews in electronic form, the medium in which they originally took place. This is certainly true of all the CMC environments in which I participated during the research period.

Furthermore, from the outset the researcher is immediately engaged in a process of, quite literally, participant observation, on and of the Internet. Because of the anti-spatial dimension of cyberspace, by visiting a particular site or engaging a particular set of software, one is participating in the social and electronic environment, because each movement through cyberspace by an individual user is tracked and traced through the network, regardless of what social participation is engaged in. In other words, it is possible to identify two levels of participation, which for the sake of clarity could be termed presence and engagement. ‘Presence’ is the type of participation which occurs when, for example, an individual attends a conference. ‘Engagement’, however, is the type of participation used when that individual steps up to the microphone to make a point during a debate, or raises their hand to vote. Understanding the fundamental difference between these types of participation is key to understanding the forms and significances of social interaction on the Internet.

In terms of observation, because the technologies of CMC have not yet expanded to embrace Virtual Reality in its technical sense, the entire process of participating in cyberspace (as defined above) is inevitably an extremely observational experience. Cyberspace may well be multi-dimensional and have the capability to transcend both time and space, but it is still firmly dependent on only two senses - sight and sound - or three if the sensation of typing on the keyboard and manoeuvring the mouse is included.

In terms of methodology, I tried to divide my research practice into two distinct categories. The first was pure participant observation, in which I interacted with others socially on-line, partly to learn more about CMC through presence and engagement, and partly to experience such situations and environments first-hand. In most of the situations in which I participated, I did not feel that it was always necessary to state my purpose explicitly in terms of ethnographic research, or even to refer to my dissertation subject at all. This included recording and analysing publicly posted messages (although not quoting from them) without permission, and is in line with the ethical policy proposed by the ProjectH Research Group[3], who view such study as “akin to the study of tombstone epitaphs, graffiti or letters to the editor. Personal? - yes. Private? - no”.[4]

The exception to this occurred in the case of the Electric Minds virtual Community conference topic which I created specifically for the discussion of this topic, and in which all participants understood that such a discussion was part of my research method (see 5.4). In other situations, I did not specifically conceal my research, however. Information available on my personal web page explained my course of study and the topic of my dissertation, as well as other personal information. Those with whom I interacted socially in this first method of research were free to visit my homepage to discover more about me as a person; a ‘netizen’ as well as an anthropologist.

In the second method, as part of the research process, I relied on a combination of formal and informal interviews with users, both on- and off-line5. I corresponded via e-mail with a number of users of social environments in cyberspace, in order to discover more about their feelings about community and connectedness in cyberspace and the effects which such interaction had on their on- and off-line sociality. There has been some debate amongst researchers on-line as to the ethics (as well as accuracy and practicality) of using interviews which have been conducted on-line.[6] I decided that in general it was best to defer to traditional ways of thinking about ethnographic practice, wherein “interviewing [respondents] on their own territory … is the best strategy. It allows them to relax much more than they would in less familiar surroundings”. [7]

This sense of security, combined with the logistical and practical difficulties involved in interviewing users from such diverse locations decided my method in this matter. Each of the users I interviewed were informed that although their comments may be used in my work, their anonymity would be preserved. Although some researchers might choose to change or withhold only the real names of their informants, in order to protect their identity, I believe that it is equally important to change aliases or ‘handles’, as this proves respect “for the social reality of cyberspace”.[8] Where possible, therefore, the identities of participants and informants have been withheld or changed, except in a number of cases where I have been given specific permission to cite a user’s actual information or identity. Furthermore, I laboured to clarify with each of my informants that my interest in virtual community and on-line social interaction was not purely based on the need to conduct research for this dissertation. [9]

5.2 “To Whom It May Concern…” - Mailing Lists

The first experience of computer-mediated communication I participated in for research purposes was a mailing list (sometimes known as a ‘listserv’) for alumni of my former college in Canada. This meant that each day I would receive between 6 and 10 e-mails from a diverse number of people, although all sent from one address (see chapter two for details of the technological processes involved). Most of the messages received from this particular mailing list during the period of research (six months) were sent by one of a small number of active participants[10], and were either appeals (for funds or assistance) or announcements (of births/marriages/deaths or forthcoming events). Despite enabling the researcher to maintain a higher degree of awareness than usual about alumni activities and circumstances, the experience hardly fostered any real sense of community. In fact, the experience seemed more like passive networking than community participation; rather like reading a newsletter.

However, it is important to point out that the technology involved in this particular type of CMC enabled users to feel in some small way connected to or at least aware of a larger community or alumni. One user articulated her feelings that “[t]his list isn’t the community itself. It’s a way to *access*[11] the wider community”.[12] Although this form of electronic community was quite popular in the early days of the Internet, its use has decreased quite significantly in recent years, because of the appearance of other forms of communication.

5.3 “a/s/l, please”[13] - Internet Relay Chat

The second form of virtual community I experienced during research was Internet Relay Chat. Over a number of months I regularly observed and actively participated in two chat channels (sometimes called ‘rooms’). As mentioned above, the idea of active participation is important, perhaps nowhere more so than in IRC. One informant and regular IRC user told me that “just being there is not enough. You have to talk or it’s boring (for you and everyone else). If you don’t say anything, everyone assumes you’re AFK [away from keyboard] and ignores you”.[14] The upshot of this is that sometimes users will say anything at all, rather than remain ’silent’.

Some researchers, including psychologist and ethnographic researcher John Suler, have attempted to prove that interaction in synchronous chat-driven environments can be a serious and intensely personal activity. In his research, Suler focused on a multimedia (avatar- and sound-based) environment called ‘The Palace’. He noted that:

The word ‘chat’ surely connotes a superficial mode of relating. Indeed, conversation in a chat room often is less than ‘deep’. But … conversation is sometimes very meaningful. Despite the staccato style and the potential for buzzing confusion, discussions can be very fluid, sophisticated and personal. [15]

Elizabeth Reid concurs with this view, defining textual cues in IRC as symbolic conventions, without which successful CMC could not occur. She states that despite their playful nature and use, such conventions are “not in any way thought to be shallow or ephemeral”.[16] I do not dispute that this could in fact be the case in some chat environments. However, it was my experience that the majority of interaction using this medium was both superficial and short-lived, with a relatively high turnover of participants during each session. Nevertheless, this is not to say that a sense of community (or social network) was not established.

It quickly became clear that much of the interaction in such channels was based on the prior acquaintance of the participants. A regular user of IRC commented “I call some people on here my ‘friends’, but I don’t really *know* them - at least not in the same way I know my friends at school :)”. [17] The ‘easy intimacy’ aforementioned is certainly relevant in this context. It often seemed that spending twenty minutes in casual conversation with another user, or bumping into the same user twice in a period of a couple of days could mean that you were able to claim acquaintance of them. Other interaction in the channels was based on ‘meeting’ new participants. The ritual of reciprocal greeting that takes place between IRC participants often seems to take up an inordinate amount of time, and can occasionally seem to be the only activity that occurs in some channels. [18]

What makes this ironic is that some users have testified that one of the things they find most appealing about communication on the Internet is that they are able to dispense with some of the formalities that face-to-face social interaction so often involves. Michael Hauben, who co-wrote a pioneering study on Netizens[19] and the Internet, quotes one of his informants, who says that the aspect he finds most refreshing about communication on the Internet is that it allows “a direct-connect style of communication that seems to transcend the ‘how’s the weather’ kind of conversation to just let us connect without the bullshit”.[20] Appendix One contains a ‘log’ (transcript) of a short session in one of these channels, which demonstrates the type of interaction common to Internet Relay Chat sessions.

5.4 “You suck” “Well, you suck more” - Newsgroups/BBS

The third kind of virtual community experienced during research was a newsgroup or Bulletin Board Service. One of the earliest forms of social interaction on the Internet, Bulletin Board Services have maintained their original popularity over nearly two decades. As part of the research for this dissertation, I regularly accessed and posted to two newsgroups. The first of these was supposedly dedicated to the anthropological discussion of culture and the Internet. The second was dedicated to discussing the work of one of my favourite musicians, Ani DiFranco. These quite different groups were deliberately selected in order to provide a contrast between the social or academic nature of discussion and interaction via this medium. They were also selected because I felt it was important that I understand the general topic of discussion in each newsgroup, in order to be able to participate and analyse effectively.

In fact, the greatest difference between the two groups seemed to be the activity within each one. In the music newsgroup, participants tended to post in rapid succession to each other, and moreover seemed to post only messages which were directly (or, in some cases, indirectly) relevant to the topic. Typical messages were concerned with tour dates, requests for ‘bootlegs’[21], gossip and information about new releases. In the anthropology newsgroup, however, it was possible to notice a greater length of time elapsing between relevant posts. Furthermore, the topic was characterised by the content of messages posted to it. Ironically, a large volume of messages posted to the newsgroup were requests for assistance or collaboration from postgraduate social science students who were conducting research on the Internet. There was little actual discussion of the subject in the newsgroup itself, although it is impossible to say what kind of conversations or collaborations (if any) occurred beyond the public space (e.g. via e-mail).

The Internet newsgroup was frequently inundated with messages which were blatantly off-topic, and had obviously been posted to a wide range of groups, regardless of relevance. This practice is widespread and can occur in the medium of private e-mail as well as public message boards, and is known as ’spamming’. [22]

Another type of message that was noted with frequency was the ‘flame’. Flaming is an extreme method of fighting with words, usually for little or no apparent reason. Kiesler, Siegel and MacGuire (1984) classify flaming as an “emotional expression of opinion and feeling which occurs more frequently on the computer than in other communication settings”.[23] Hence, users will flame each other with much more regularity than they might use in face-to-face situations. One user (and regular flamer) commented that “i flame the hell outta ppl i don’t know…and why? because i can! … i say stuff i wouldn’t dare to [in a face-to-face situation]. where else do i get the chance to let off steam publically [sic] and without a good reason?”. [24] Indeed, entire newsgroups have been established for the sole purpose of prolonged flaming, a phenomenon also known as a ‘flame-war’. In the context of the Anthropology newsgroup, on more than one occasion, the discussion ‘thread’ was interrupted by disruptive flames, either against individuals (or individual posts) or against the group or subject as a whole.

The most striking phenomenon in the sphere of newsgroups was that “those who frequent USENET newsgroups provide evidence that they feel the group and its messages ‘belong’ to them”.[25] This seems to be an inversion of the traditional community power and possession perspective; we do not belong to the community, the community belongs to us. [26] This sentiment was certainly very obvious in both of the newsgroups in which I conducted participant observation over the research period. However, as mentioned previously, this sentiment did not, at least obviously, give the impression that the members felt that they belonged to a community. Rather, the general impression was that the commonality the participants shared - interest in a particular subject - was a happy coincidence, which inspires group loyalty. Is this feeling that somewhere ‘out there’ exist others who share our interests the same as a sense of community? Does this sense of connectedness necessarily form a community? Jones’ comment about “aimless connectedness”[27] implies that, at least in his view, this is not the case. In fact, engagement in this form of CMC is very low indeed[28], which was immediately obvious from the small number of names which occurred repeatedly throughout both conferences.

5.5 “A game of all-in Royal Tennis” - Conferencing

Another aspect of CMC I experienced was conferencing. I became an active member of the Electric Minds virtual community, which was co-founded by Howard Rheingold, and is ‘home’ to a number of influential netizens, as well as many less famous but more interesting participants. After I had been observing and participating in a number of discussions and conferences for a number of months, I started a discussion topic entitled (Re)Defining Culture and Community on the Net, number sixty in the ‘Fundamentals’ Conference, which is devoted to discussion of social science and the Net, theorising about the Internet, virtual communities, cyberculture and so on. The discussion topic I began has been active for over six months now (meaning that people have consistently participated in it) and is still going strong. Although only 10-15 people have actively participated in the discussion, I am aware that others have certainly read it, and subsequently communicated with me via private e-mail, although not in the discussion itself. I am also aware that still others may have read the development of the discussion over the past few months, although they have not actively contributed to it. This is known as lurking, and is by far the most popular characteristic of social activity on the Internet. Simply put, it means listening in (reading) without speaking (posting), and some sources in the Electric Minds community estimate the ratio of lurkers to posters to be as much as 20:1. Certainly, the same names (handles) re-occurred repeatedly in posts throughout this discussion topic.

Discussion topic sixty has covered a great deal of theoretical and social ground over the past months of activity. The discussion has ranged from initially trying to construct a collaborative definition of culture which could exist without such qualifiers as ‘virtual’ or ‘real’, to more recently exploring issues of ‘lurking’ and presence-based participation in virtual communities. Other, shorter topics of discussion have been addressed along the way, including the problems inherent in performing ethnography in cyberspace. This part of the discussion was greatly enhanced by the fact that at least three of the main contributors to the discussion are currently in the process of undertaking such research, in pursuit of diverse postgraduate qualifications in the humanities, at three separate universities. Although a number of budding and actual anthropologists were participating in the topic, it certainly was not limited to their participation. Other members of the virtual community contributed their views and ideas in equal measure, and the discussion progressed at the rate of approximately one ‘post’ of roughly five hundred words each day.

Participation in the topic varied between longer, more academic posts and shorter responses which demonstrated encouragement for others, general and specific questions, and post-scripts to earlier statements. The role of these shorter posts cannot be under-emphasised, since they seemed to contribute to the idea of the discussion as an ongoing conversation, rather than a series of academic postulations. As previously noted by other researchers, one of the key communication cues or characteristics missing from on-line textual interaction is the use of acknowledging gestures, affirming grunts and so on. Short posts serve the same general purpose as these visual and aural cues, letting the writer know that others are reading. One participant in the discussion topic likened on-line conversation to a game of “all-in royal tennis, where the ball bounces off everything, can be hit by anyone, at any time, with anything, to anyone, or anywhere!” [29]

Although all participants in the discussion were fully aware of the fact that I was performing ethnographic research on as well as participating in the community, this seemed to make little difference to participation. However, I was aware that my willingness to participate and discuss my research openly with the research subjects was seen as better ‘netiquette’ than simply lurking and studying from a detached perspective. In cyberspace, as well as in more traditional fields of anthropology, scholars need to be aware that research ‘data’ is always constructed in collaboration with the subjects of the research.

5.6 “Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: This is Funny!” - E-Mail

The final form of CMC I experienced was e-mail. Although this medium is not generally considered to be a form of community, it shares many of the traits which communities foster, and can provide a useful demonstration of the popularity and efficiency of CMC. A recent article in The Guardian described e-mail thus:

Occupying a space somewhere between the telephone and the letter, e-mail has radically changed the way we communicate with each other. Traditionalists see its informality and almost complete absence of grammatical rules as a reflection of failing standards; others credit it with reviving the lost art of written communication.[30]

I have known Steven Ness for almost exactly eight years. Of that, only the first ten months were spent in the same physical space - at college in Canada. After he graduated, and moved to a different city, we remained in contact, first by telephone and letter, and then after about a year, by e-mail. Our friendship has continued to grow, and I still count him as one of my closest friends, although it has been seven years since he and I were last in the same location. Our friendship is almost comically defined by the medium by which we communicate. I now habitually and almost unconsciously refer to him as ’sness’, which is the first part of his e-mail address. Despite the geographic distance between our physical locations, I still hear from him with more frequency than I hear from members of my own family (who do not have access to e-mail).

E-mail is also a useful way to maintain contact with people, using brief salutary notes rather than long personal letters. The most common manifestation of this is seen in the ‘forwarding’ of humorous, moving or important messages from one e-mail user to another. Some of the messages contained in this category might more usually be described as ‘chain-letters’, although they do not describe themselves in this way. If a user receives a message such as this from a friend or acquaintance, the ’subject’ field will contain the notation ‘fwd:’ to indicate that the message originated elsewhere. The more times the message has been forwarded, the more ‘fwd’s it will contain, along with (in the body of the message) a full list of all the previous recipients of the message. This is known as the message ‘header’. When the current recipient sends it on to other friends, usually from a different sphere of acquaintance, the message will acquire more ‘headers’, and so on, ad infinitum. This form of e-mail can often constitute the majority of e-mail correspondence passing between friends, serving as a way of keeping in touch, rather than actual communication.