The proliferation and importance of online communities have created an expansive research terrain for literacy research. Within a networked communication landscape located within and across platforms, designing studies of online communities presents methodological challenges, foremost of which is how to define and operationalize online communities. In this conceptual article, we explore interdisciplinary definitions of online communities and outline three constructs regarding literacy research about online communities: (1) spatiality: how online communities are constituted in virtual space, (2) reliability: how human subjects are composed online, and (3) temporality: how the passage of time blurs the boundaries between public and private data online. We discuss these constructs and the tensions they present for research about online communities in a postdigital era, explore implications for the study of literacy across various populations and global locations, and propose recommendations and questions for literacy researchers to consider in designing and conducting studies about online communities.
AddeoF.Delli PaoliA.EspositoM.Ylenia BolcatoM. (2020). Doing social research on online communities: The benefits of netnography. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.7-1-1
2.
AlbersP.PaceC. L.OdoD. M. (2016). From affinity and beyond: A study of online literacy conversations and communities. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(2), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16659069
3.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.
4.
ArdaB.AkdemirA. (2021). Activist communication design on social media: The case of online solidarity against forced Islamic lifestyle. Media, Culture & Society, 43(6), 1078–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720986002
5.
AskaniusT. (2019). Studying the Nordic Resistance Movement: Three urgent questions for researchers of contemporary neo-Nazis and their media practices. Media, Culture & Society, 41(6), 878–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719831181
6.
BakerE. B. A. (2021). Wag the dog: A digital literacies narrative. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211027556
7.
BayneS.ConnellyL.GroverC.OsborneN.TobinR.BeswickE.RouhaniL. (2019). The social value of anonymity on campus: A study of the decline of Yik Yak. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1590961
8.
BhattI. (2023). Postdigital literacies. In JandrićP. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of postdigital science and education (pp. 1–5). Springer Nature.
9.
BlackR. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. Peter Lang.
10.
BoffoneT.JerasaS. (2021). Toward a (queer) Reading community: BookTok, teen readers, and the rise of TikTok literacies. Talking Points, 33(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.58680/tp202131537
11.
BrandtD.ClintonK. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3403_4
12.
BrandtzaegP. B.LüdersM. (2018). Time collapse in social media: Extending the context collapse. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763349
13.
BurrellJ. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, 21(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08329699
14.
CaliandroA. (2018). Digital methods for ethnography: Analytical concepts for ethnographers exploring social media environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(5), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241617702960
15.
CollinsC.KimG. M.McLeanJ. (2024). Hope and resistance in teachers’ online discussions around LGBTQIA+ literature. English Journal, 113(6), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113658
16.
CorbittA.BeckerM. L. (2024). Locating critical play on roblox: Glitching and (re)placement as methods of public access and transnational belonging. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2024.2439555
17.
CortezA.McKoyA.LizárragaJ. R. (2022). The future of young Blacktivism: Aesthetics and practices of speculative activism in video game play. Journal of Futures Studies, 26(3), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202203_26(3).0005
CurranN. M. (2024). Language learners or hallyu fans? Identity and Korean language learning in the digital wilds. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2024.2426007
20.
CurwoodJ. S. (2013). The Hunger Games: Literature, literacy, and online affinity spaces. Language Arts, 90(6), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201323844
21.
CurwoodJ. S.MagnificoA. M.LammersJ. C.StornaiuoloA. (2019). Ethical dilemmas within online literacy research. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68(1), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336919870264
22.
DeCookJ. R. (2018). Memes and symbolic violence: #ProudBoys and the use of memes for propaganda and the construction of collective identity. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1544149
23.
DuffyB. E.PoellT.NieborgD. B. (2019). Platform practices in the cultural industries: Creativity, labor, and citizenship. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119879672
EtterM.AlbuO. B. (2021). Activists in the dark: Social media algorithms and collective action in two social movement organizations. Organization, 28(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961532
26.
franzkeA. S.BechmannA.EssC. M.ZimmerM. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. W. W. Norton & Company. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
GarciaA. C.StandleeA. I.BechkoffJ.CuiY. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 52–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241607310839
29.
García-RappF. (2019). Trivial and normative? Online fieldwork within YouTube’s beauty community. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 48(5), 619–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241618806974
30.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
GuzzettiB. J.FoleyL. M. (2014). Literacy agents online: E-discussion forums for advancing adults’ literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.271
32.
HaimsonO. L.Dame-GriffA.CapelloE.RichterZ. (2021). Tumblr was a trans technology: The meaning, importance, history, and future of trans technologies. Feminist Media Studies, 21(3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1678505
33.
HaverinenA. (2015). Internet ethnography: The past, the present and the future. Ethnologia Fennica, 42, 79–90.
34.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
35.
HineC. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
36.
HineC. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. Bloomsbury Academic.
37.
HowlettM. (2022). Looking at the “field” through a zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691
38.
HullG. A.SchultzK. (2002). School’s out: Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice (Vol. 60). Teachers College Press.
39.
JenkinsH.ItoM.boydd. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era. Polity Press.
40.
JungJ. K. (2024). Writing globally: South Korean adolescents’ digital multimodal composing practices in a global online community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1378
41.
KaufmannM.TzanetakisM. (2020). Doing internet research with hard-to-reach communities: Methodological reflections on gaining meaningful access. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 927–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120904898
42.
KimG. M. (2016). Transcultural digital literacies: Cross-border connections and self-representations in an online forum. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.131
43.
KimG. M. (2019). Do they really do that in Korea?”: Multicultural learning about Korea through Hallyu media. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(4), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1620768
44.
KimG. M. (2025). Transnational fan activism: Digital literacies and global civic futures. In Timmons-LongL.MirraN.GarciaA. (Eds.), Building civic futures in out-of-school literacy learning environments (pp. 155–163). NCTE/Routledge.
45.
KimG. M.OmerbašićD. (2017). Multimodal literacies: Imagining lives through Korean dramas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.609
46.
KistW.TollfieldK. A.DagistanM. (2014). Leading ourselves (tweets optional): An analysis of selected Twitter users. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.362
47.
KnobelM.LankshearC. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.314
48.
KovalikK.CurwoodJ. S. (2019). #Poetryisnotdead: Understanding Instagram poetry within a transliteracies framework. Literacy, 53(4), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12186
49.
KozinetsR. (2010). Netnography. Sage.
50.
LakhmaniS.OppoldP.RuppM. A.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). Heterogeneous knowledge distribution in MMO player behavior: Using domain knowledge to distinguish membership in a community of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.032
LamW. S. E.WuJ. (2025). Chronotopes of transnational literacies: How youth live and imagine social worlds in their digital media practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.577
53.
LammersJ. C.CurwoodJ. S.MagnificoA. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 11(2), 44–58.
54.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
55.
LeanderK. M.McKimK. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday “sitings” of adolescents on the internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310303140
LentersK. (2014). Reassembling the literacy event in Shirley Brice Heath’s Ways with words. In Educating for language and literacy diversity: Mobile selves (pp. 153–172). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
58.
LiteratI.Kligler-VilenchikN. (2021). How popular culture prompts youth collective political expression and cross-cutting political talk on social media: A cross-platform analysis. Social Media + Society, 7(2), Article 20563051211008821. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008821
59.
MahiriJ.KimG. M. (2016). Micro-cultures and the limits of multicultural education in the U. S. Context. Revista de Ciències de L’Educació, 1, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.17345/ute.2016.1.970
60.
MarkhamA. N.GammelbyA. K. (2018). Moving through digital flows: An epistemological and practical approach. In FlickU. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 451–465). Sage.
61.
MarshJ. (2011). Young children’s literacy practices in a virtual world: Establishing an online interaction order. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.2.1
62.
McDanielD. (2025). Samirah X’s sense of audience: A case study on black teen activism on social media. Written Communication, Article 07410883241303918.
63.
McLeanC. A. (2024). Making an influence: Sponsorship and creolization on social media. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(3), 228–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.559
64.
MeansA. J. (2018). Platform learning and on-demand labor: Sociotechnical projections on the future of education and work. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504792
65.
NashB. (2022). We felt like pioneers”: Exploring the social and emotional dimensions of English teachers’ learning during online professional development. Journal of Online Learning Research, 8(1), 101–125. https://learntechlib.org/p/220426/ https://doi.org/10.70725/982174niavix
66.
NashB. L. (2024). Emotion, stimulation, habit, and criticality: Learning from teachers’ multifaceted conceptions of digital reading. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2264979
67.
NashB. L.ZengilowskiA.SchallertD. L. (2023). The conversation has more levels: Exploring Zoom’s text chat as a discussion mediator in middle school teachers’ online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2180117
NicholsT. P.LeBlancR. J. (2021). Media education and the limits of “literacy”: Ecological orientations to performative platforms. Curriculum Inquiry, 59(4), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1865104
70.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
71.
PadgettE. R.CurwoodJ. S. (2016). A figment of their imagination: Adolescent poetic literacy in an online affinity space. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.453
72.
PangrazioL.StornaiuoloA.NicholsT. P.GarciaA.PhilipT. M. (2022). Datafication meets platformization: Materializing data processes in teaching and learning. Harvard Educational Review, 92(2), 257–283. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.2.257
PytashK. E.HicksT.FerdigR. E. (2016). Connecting and collaborating within and beyond a massive open online course. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.549
75.
ReichJ. A. (2015). Old methods and new technologies: Social media and shifts in power in qualitative research. Ethnography, 16(4), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138114552949
76.
RobinsonB. (2022). Yeet nitro boosted: A postdigital perspective on young people’s literacy engagements with the discord platform. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 71(1), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377221115738
77.
RobinsonB. (2025). Rethinking affordances and constraints in the platform era. In NicholsT. P.GarciaA. (Eds.), Literacies in the platform society: Histories, pedagogies, and possibilities (pp. 85–99). Routledge.
78.
RowsellJ. (2025). The comfort of screens. Cambridge University Press.
SavatD. (2013). Uncoding the digital: Technology, subjectivity and action in the control society. Palgrave Macmillan.
81.
SchaapJ.AupersS. (2017). Gods in the World of Warcraft exist: Religious reflexivity and the quest for meaning in online computer games. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1744–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816642421
82.
SherryM. B. (2017). How the visual rhetoric of online discussions enables and constrains students’ participation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.683
SipleyG. (2024). Lurking as literacy practice: A uses and gratifications study in neighborhood Facebook groups. New Media & Society, 26(7), 4277–4296. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221117994
85.
StornaiuoloA.DiZioJ.HellmichE.HullG. (2013). Expanding community: Youth, social networking and schools. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 20(40), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-02-08
86.
StornaiuoloA.SmithA.PhillipsN. C. (2017). Developing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16683419
87.
TanksleyT. (2025). Toward a critical race algorithmic literacy: Preparing Black youth to “talk back” to algorithmic bias and platformed racism. In NicholsT. P.GarciaA. (Eds.), Literacies in the platform society: Histories, pedagogies, and possibilities (pp. 245–270). Routledge.
88.
von GillernS.RobinsonB.CzaudernaA. (2024). Pedagogical practices in a gaming affinity space and the motivating sting of Elden Ring. E-Learning and Digital Media, Article, 20427530241232496.
89.
WangV.TuckerJ. V. (2021). I am not a number: Conceptualising identity in digital surveillance. Technology in Society, 67, Article 101772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101772
90.
WeichA.MacgilchristF. (2023). Postdigital participation in education: How contemporary media constellations shape participation. Springer Nature.
91.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.
92.
WertheimM. (1999). The pearly gates of cyberspace: A history of space from Dante to the Internet.
93.
WilfS.Wray-LakeL. (2024). That’s how revolutions happen”: Psychopolitical resistance in youth’s online civic engagement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 39(4), 827–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584211062121
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
