In this article, we think with the ongoing conversations on “embracing digital worlds” through juxtaposing the methodological practices enabled by “digital worlds” with the writings of science fiction. Specifically, we leverage the criticality of a Chinese sci-fi text, Folding Beijing, to shed light on issues of equity and justice in qualitative inquiry. This approach allows us to interrogate, problematize, and trespass the boundaries of the digital worlds as well as the underlying digital infrastructure. We discuss three types of boundaries that shape our use of digital tools/spaces: broadband internet accessibility, the borders of language, and universal design and digital inclusion.
AndersA. D.LesterJ. N. (2019). Examining loss: Postcritical ethnography and the pursuit of what could be otherwise. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9–10), 925–935.
2.
AndroutsopoulosJ. (2010). Localizing the global on the participatory web. In CouplandN. (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 203–231). Wiley.
AubrechtK. (2012). Disability studies and the language of mental illness. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 8(2).
5.
BenjaminR. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press.
6.
BlumenfeldS.AndersonG.HooperV. (2020). Covid-19 and employee surveillance. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 45(2), 42–56.
7.
BowerK. L.LewisD. C.PaulusT. M. (2022). Using ATLAS for Mac to enact narrative analysis: Metaphor of generativity from LGBT older adult life stories. Qualitative Research, 22(6), 933–950.
8.
BrandaoC.CostaA. P. (2020). Reflecting on CAQDAS and ethics. The Qualitative Report, 25(13), 1–5.
The Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. NC State University.
11.
CheekJ.Koro-LjungbergM. (2019). Interfaces between social media and qualitative inquiry in neoliberal contexts: Possibilities and problems. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(6), 569–570.
CrealockC.SitkoM. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting technologies in writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 5(2), 173–183.
14.
DanetB.HerringS. C. (Eds.). (2007). The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online. Oxford University Press.
15.
DavidsonJ. (2018). Qualitative research and complex teams. Oxford University Press.
16.
de Souza BriggsX. (2005). The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choices in metropolitan America. Brookings Institution Press.
17.
DoJ.Yamagata-LynchL. (2017). Designing and developing cell phone applications for qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731085
18.
EdyburnD. L. (2004). 2003 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 57–80.
19.
EversJ.CaprioliM. U.NostS.WiedemannG. (2020). What is the REFI-QDA standard: Experimenting with the transfer of analyzed research projects between QDA software. FORUM Qualitative Social Research, 21(2), Article 22.
FoucaultM. (2012). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (SheridanA., Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1975).
22.
GarcíaO.FloresN.SpottiM. (2016). Introduction—Language and society: A critical poststructuralist perspective. In GarcíaO.FloresN.SpottiM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 1–16). Oxford University Press.
23.
Garland ThomsonR. (1996). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. Columbia University Press.
24.
GhyselenA. S.BreitbarthA.FarasynM.Van KeymeulenJ.van HessenA. (2020). Clearing the transcription hurdle in dialect corpus building: The corpus of southern Dutch dialects as case study. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00010
25.
GilesD.StommelW.PaulusT. (2017). The microanalysis of online data: The next stage. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 37–51.
GoodyearV.BundonA. (2021). Contemporary digital qualitative research in sport, exercise and health. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health, 13(1), 1–10.
28.
GreenT. L.SánchezJ.GermainE. (2017). Communities and school ratings: Examining geography of opportunity in an urban school district located in a resource-rich city. The Urban Review, 49(5), 777–804.
29.
HackneyS. E. (2022). Between text and language: Unicode and the rise of emojis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh].
HannaP. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.
32.
HaoJ. (2015). Folding Beijing (LiuK., Trans., p. 2). Uncanny Magazine.
33.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
34.
HasselbringT. S.GlaserC. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children, 10, 102–122.
35.
HebertB. M.MurdockJ. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(3), 136–141.
36.
HousleyW.DicksB.HenwoodK.SmithR. (2017). Qualitative methods and data in digital societies. Qualitative Research, 17(6), 607–609.
37.
JacksonK.PaulusT.WoolfN. (2018). The walking dead genealogy: Unsubstantiated criticisms of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and the failure to put them to rest. The Qualitative Report, 23(13), Article 6.
38.
Kelly-HolmesH. (2019). Multilingualism and technology: A review of developments in digital communication from monolingualism to idiolingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 24–39.
39.
KerschbaumS.PriceM. (2017). Centering disability in qualitative interviewing. Research on the Teaching of English, 52(1), 98–107.
40.
KleinrockL. (2010). An early history of the internet [History of communications]. Communications Magazine, 48(8), 26–36.
41.
Koro-LjungbergM. (2015). Reconceptualizing qualitative research: Methodologies without methodology. SAGE.
42.
KorpelaJ. K. (2006). Unicode explained. O’Reilly Media.
43.
LeeK.ChenQ. (2021). AI 2041: Ten visions for our future. Currency.
44.
LesterJ. N.NusbaumE. A. (2018). Reclaiming disability in critical, qualitative research [Special issue]. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417727761
45.
LesterJ. N.NusbaumE. A. (Eds.). (2021). Centering diverse bodyminds in critical qualitative inquiry. Routledge.
46.
LeszczynskiA.ZookM. (2020). Viral data. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1–5.
47.
LubkeJ.BrittG.PaulusT.AtkinsD. (2017). Hacking the literature review: Opportunities and innovations to improve the research process. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(4), 285–295.
48.
MacKenzieL.TurtonD. (2020). Assessing the accuracy of existing forced alignment software on varieties of British English. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(s1), Article 20180061. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0061
49.
McLaughlinF. (2014). Senegalese digital repertoires in superdiversity: A case study from Seneweb. Discourse, Context & Media, 4, 29–37.
50.
McRuerR.JohnsonM. (2014). Proliferating cripistemologies: A virtual roundtable. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), 149–170.
51.
Melgar-EstradaL.KoolenM. (2018). Audiovisual media annotation using qualitative data analysis: A comparative analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(13), 40–60. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss13/4
52.
NaudéW.VinuesaR. (2021). Data deprivations, data gaps and digital divides: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 1–12.
53.
NusbaumE.LesterJ. N. (in press). Critical disability studies and diverse bodyminds in qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.GiardinaM. D.CannellaG. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE.
54.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin.
55.
PaulusT.LesterJ. N. (2016). ATLAS.ti for conversation and discourse analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 405–428.
56.
PaulusT. M.LesterJ. N. (2022). Doing qualitative research in a digital world. SAGE.
57.
PaulusT. M.LesterJ. N.BrittV. (2013). Constructing hopes and fears: A discourse analysis of introductory qualitative research texts. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 637–649.
58.
PaulusT. M.LesterJ. N.DempsterP. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. SAGE.
59.
PaulusT. M.WiseA. (2019). Looking for insight, transformation and learning in online talk. Routledge.
60.
PearsonH.DickensB. (2021). (Re)framing qualitative research as a prickly artichoke: Peeling back the layers of structural ableism within the institutional research process. In LesterJ. N.NusbaumE. A. (Eds.), Centering disability in critical qualitative research (pp. 81–94). Routledge.
61.
RobinsC.EisenK. (2017). Strategies for the effective use of NVivo in a large-scale study: Qualitative analysis and the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 768–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731089
62.
RolbieckiA. J.TetiM.LeroC.BensonJ. J.WashingtonK. T. (2022). Opportunities and challenges for visual qualitative intervention research on Facebook. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221074445
63.
SalmonsJ. (2022). Doing qualitative research online (2nd ed.). SAGE.
64.
SanfordJ. A. (2012). Universal design as a rehabilitation strategy: Design for the ages. Springer.
65.
SheyholislamiJ. (2010). Identity, language, and new media: The Kurdish case. Language Policy, 9(4), 289–312.
66.
SkinnerB.LevyH.BurtchB. (2021). Digital redlining: The relevance of 20th century housing policy to 21st century broadband access and education (Ed Working Paper: 21-471). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/q9av-9c93
67.
SquiresG. D.KubrinC. E. (2005). Privileged places: Race, uneven development and the geography of opportunity in urban America. Urban Studies, 42(1), 47–68.
68.
TateW. F.IV. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397–411.
69.
ThunbergS.ArnellL. (2022). Pioneering the use of technologies in qualitative research: A research review of the use of digital interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1935565
70.
TilsonD.LyytinenK.SørensenC. (2010). Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759.
71.
TsatsouP. (2021). Is digital inclusion fighting disability stigma? Opportunities, barriers, and recommendations. Disability & Society, 36(5), 702–729.
WebsterJ. P.da SilvaS. M. (2013). Doing educational ethnography in an online world: Methodological challenges, choices and innovations. Ethnography and Education, 8(2), 123–130.
78.
WilliamsA. S.MooreS. M. (2011). Universal design of research: Inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream biomedical studies. Science Translational Medicine, 3(82), 1–10.
79.
WoodsM.PaulusT.AtkinsD.MacklinR. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software? Reviewing potential vs. practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994-2013. Social Science Computing Review, 34(5), 597–617.
80.
World Bank. (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends.
