This paper draws on data from an exploratory study into the social media engagements of LGBT+ young people aged 16 to 20 years old, in the United Kingdom, and considers how participant-led visual methods generated insights into different modalities of digitally mediated intimacy. It outlines the methodological paradigms dominating current research on LGBT+ young people’s digitally mediated practices of intimacy and argues that visual methods have been underemployed to date. The participatory visual methods used in this study, including map-making and digital tours of participant’s digital worlds along with visual elicitation interviews, are documented and explored in relation to Berlant’s work on intimacy and theories of networked affect. It also reflects upon the ethical implications of re-presenting social media images and troubles interpretive imperatives within qualitative research.
AlburyK.ByronP. (2016). Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people’s negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1-10.
2.
AlexanderJ.LoshE. (2010). “A YouTube of one’s own?” “Coming Out” videos as rhetorical action. In PullenC.CooperM. (Eds.), LGBT Identity and online new media (pp. 37-50). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AllenL. (2015). Sexual assemblages: Mobile phones/young people/school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36, 120-132.
4.
AndersonB. (2006). Becoming and being hopeful: Towards a theory of affect. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 733-752.
5.
AustinJ. (2016). Dancing sexual pleasures: Exploring teenage women’s experiences of sexuality and pleasure beyond “sex.”Sex Education, 16, 279-293.
6.
BerlantL. (1998). Intimacy: A special issue. Critical Inquiry, 24, 281-288.
7.
BerlantL. (2008). The female complaint: The unfinished business of sentimentality in American culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
BradyG.BrownG. (2013). Rewarding but let’s talk about the challenges: Using arts based methods in research with young mothers. Methodological Innovations, 8, 99-112.
9.
ChoA. (2015). Queer reverb: Tumblr, affect, time. In HillisK.PaasonenS.PetitM. (Eds.), Networked affect (pp. 44-58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
ColemanR. (2009). The becoming of bodies: Girls, images, experience. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
ColemanR.RingroseJ. (2013). Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
13.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
14.
De RidderS.Van BauwelS. (2015). The discursive construction of gay teenagers in times of mediatization: Youth’s reflections on intimate storytelling, queer shame and realness in popular social media places. Journal of Youth Studies, 18, 777-793.
DowningG. (2013). Virtual youth: Non-heterosexual young people’s use of the internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations. Children’s Geographies, 11, 44-58.
17.
DuguayS. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18, 891-907.
18.
EtheridgeL. (2016). Complex and creative intimate and sexual citizens: Mapping a study that seeks to understand children outside the binary of sexual innocence or sexual contamination. Continuum, 30, 547-556.
19.
FeatherstoneM. (2010). Body, image and affect in consumer culture. Body & Society, 16, 193-221.
20.
FraserM.PuwarN. (2008). Introduction: Intimacy in research. History of Human Sciences, 21(4), 1-16.
21.
GallacherL.GallagherM. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research: Thinking through “participatory methods.”Childhood, 15, 499-516.
22.
GilbertJ. (2014). Sexuality in school: The limits of education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
HandM. (2017). Visuality in social media: Researching images, circulations and practices. In SloanL.Quan-HaaseA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 215-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
HillierL.HarrisonL. (2007). Building realities less limited than their own: Young people practicing same-sex attraction on the internet. Sexualities, 10, 82-100.
28.
HillisK.PaasonenS.PetitM. (2015). Networked affect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
HollandS.RenoldE.RossN.HillmanA. (2010). Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood, 17, 360-375.
30.
JamiesonL. (2013). Personal relationships, intimacy and the self in a mediated global digital age. In Orton-JohnsonK. (Ed.), Digital sociology: Critical perspectives (pp. 13-33). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
KofoedJ.CharlotteM. (2016). A snap of intimacy: Photo-sharing among young people on social media. First Monday, 21(11). doi:10.5210/fm.v21i11.6905
32.
LovelockM. (2017). “Is every YouTuber going to make a coming out video eventually?” YouTube celebrity video bloggers and lesbian and gay identity. Celebrity Studies, 8, 87-103.
33.
MacintoshL.BrysonM. (2008). Youth, Myspace, and the interstitial spaces of becoming and belonging. Journal of LGBT Youth Studies, 5, 133-142.
34.
MaclureM. (2013). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In ColemanB.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164-183). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
35.
MaclureM.HolmesR.JonesL.MacRaeC. (2010). Silence as resistance to analysis: Or, on not opening one’s mouth properly. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 492-500.
36.
MannayD. (2016). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Application, reflection and ethics. London, England: Routledge.
37.
MayesE. (2016). Shifting research methods with a becoming-child ontology: Co-theorising puppet production with high school students. Childhood, 23, 105-122.
38.
MclellandS.FineS. (2008). Writing on cellophane: studying teen women’s sexual desires, inventing methodological release points. In GallagherK. (Ed.), (pp. 232-260). London: Routledge.
39.
McBeanS. (2014). Remediating affect: “Luclyn” and lesbian intimacy on YouTube. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18, 282-297.
40.
McNicholas SmithK.TylerI. (2017). Lesbian brides: Post-queer popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 17, 315-331.
41.
O’RiordanK.PhillipsD. (2007). Queer online: Media, technology and sexuality. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
42.
PaasonenS. (2015). A midsummer’s bonfire: Affective intensities of online debate. In HillisK.PaasonenS.PetitM. (Eds.), Networked affect (pp. 27-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
PaasonenS.HillisK.PetitM. (2015). Networks of transmission: Intensity, sensation, value. In HillisK.PaasonenS.PetitM. (Eds.), Networked affect (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
PauwelL. (2015). Reframing visual social science: Towards a more visual sociology and anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
RaunT. (2012). DIY therapy: Exploring affective self-representations in trans video blogs on YouTube. In KaratzogianniA.KuntsmanA. (Eds.), Digital cultures and the politics of emotion: Feelings, affect and technological change (pp. 165-181). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
RenningerB. (2015). “Where I can be myself…where I can speak my mind”: Networked counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media & Society, 17, 1513-1529.
47.
RenoldE. (2017). “Feel what I feel”: Making da(r)ta with teen girls for creative activisms on how sexual violence matters. Journal of Gender Studies, 1, 20. doi:10.1080/09589236.2017.1296352
48.
RenoldE.RingroseJ. (2017). Selfies, relfies and phallic tagging: Posthuman part-icipations in teen digital sexuality assemblages. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49,1066-1079.
49.
RingroseJ.RenoldE. (2014). “F***k Rape!” Exploring affective intensities in a feminist research assemblage. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 772-780.
Van DoornN. (2010). The ties that bind: The networked performance of gender, sexuality and friendship on Myspace. New Media & Society, 12, 583-602.
56.
VisweswaranK. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
57.
WarfieldK. (2014, March). Why I love selfies and why you should too. Public talk presented at Kwantlen Polytechnic Library, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada.
58.
WarfieldK. (in press). “Reblogging someone’s selfie is seen as a really nice thing to do”: Metaphors of place within a non-dominant platform vernacular on Tumblr. In MarkhamA.TiidenbergK. (Eds.), Remixing life online, 20 years later. CA: AltaMira Press.
59.
WargoJ. (2015). “Every selfie tells a story . . .”: LGBTQ youth lifestreams and new media narratives as connective identity texts. New Media & Society, 19, 560-578.
60.
WilesR.CoffeyA.RobinsonJ.HeathS. (2012). Anonymisation and visual images: Issues of respect, “voice” and protection. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15, 41-53.
