This article explores the consequences of ethnographic practice when social and mobile media are used both as tools for research and sites of study. We draw on incidents from our fieldwork practice to reflect on the research intimacies that are produced when digital media technologies bring different spheres of researchers’ worlds in close proximity. We show how managing the unstable rhythms and temporal structures of ethnographic fieldwork practice might involve dispensing a considerable amount of affective energy.
BakerS. (2013). Conceptualising the use of Facebook in ethnographic research: As tool, as data and as context. Ethnography and Education, 8, 131-145. doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.792504
2.
BaymN. K.MarkhamA. N. (2009). Introduction: Making smart choices on shifting ground. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BeaulieuA.EstalellaA. (2012). Rethinking research ethics for mediated settings. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 23-42.
4.
BengtssonS. (2014). Faraway, so close! Proximity and distance in ethnography online. Media, Culture & Society, 36, 862-877.
5.
BloorM.FinchamB.SampsonH. (2010). Unprepared for the worst: Risks of harm for qualitative researchers. Methodological Innovations Online, 5(1): 45-55.
6.
BoellstorffT. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds: A handbook of method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
boydd. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39-58). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BurrellJ. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, 21, 181-199.
9.
ChangH.NgunjiriF. W.HernandezK. C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
10.
ChristensenL. B.JohnsonB.TurnerL. A.ChristensenL. B. (2011). Research methods, design, and analysis. (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
11.
CoffeyA. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. London, England: Sage.
12.
DavisJ. L.JurgensonN. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 476-485.
13.
Dickson-SwiftV.JamesE. L.KippenS.LiamputtongP. (2009). Researching sensitive topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9, 61-79.
14.
FraserM.PuwarN. (2008). Introduction: Intimacy in research. London, England: Sage.
15.
HineC. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London, England: Bloomsbury.
16.
HjorthL.LimS. S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies, 12, 477-484.
17.
HochschildA. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18.
HollandJ. (2007). Emotions and research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, 195-209.
19.
HubbardG.Backett-MilburnK.KemmerD. (2001). Working with emotion: Issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4, 119-137.
KraemerJ. (2016). Doing fieldwork, BRB: Locating the field on and with emerging media. In SanjekR.TratnerS. W. (Eds.), eFieldnotes: The makings of anthropology in the digital world (pp. 113-131). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
22.
MainsahH.PrøitzL. (2015). Two journeys into research on difference in a Nordic context: A collaborative auto-ethnography. In: AndreassenRVitusK (eds) Affectivity and Race: Studies from Nordic Contexts (pp. 169-186). Canada: Ashgate.
23.
MarkhamA.StavrovaS. (2016). Internet/digital research. In SilvermanD. (Ed.) Qualitative research (pp. 229-244). London, England: Sage.
24.
MarkhamA. N. (2004). Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 95-124), (2nd ed.). London: Sage
25.
MarwickA. E.BoydD. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114-133.
26.
MeyrowitzJ. (1985). No sense of places. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
MurthyD. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42, 837-855.
28.
NutovL.HazzanO. (2011). Feeling the doctorate: Is doctoral research that studies the emotional labor of doctoral students possible. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 19-32.
29.
PapacharissiZ.YuanE. (2011). What if the Internet did not speak English? New and old language for studying newer media technologies. In JankowskiN.JonesS.ParkD. (Eds.) The long history of new media: Technology, historiography, and contextualizing newness (pp. 89-107). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
30.
PinkS.HorstH.PostillJ.HjorthL.LewisT.TacchiJ. (2015). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
31.
PrøitzL.HjorthL.LasenA. (2017). Textures of intimacy: Witnessing embodied mobile loss, affect, and heartbreak. In AndreassenR.HarrisonK.Nebeling PetersenM.RaunT. (Eds.), New media – new intimacies: Connectivities, relationalities, proximities (pp. 74-86). London, England: Routledge.
32.
SundénJ. (2012). Desires at play: On closeness and epistemological uncertainty. Games and Culture, 7, 164-184.
33.
van DoornN. (2013). Assembling the affective field: How smartphone technology impacts ethnographic research practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 385-396.
