There is a pressing need to facilitate sensitive conversations between people with differing or opposing views. On video-sharing app TikTok, the diverse experiences of donor-conceived people and recipient parents sit uneasily alongside each other, coalescing in hashtags like #donorconceived. This article describes a method ‘Situated Talk’ which uses TikToks to facilitate a reflexive encounter, drawing on three areas of scholarship: media ethnography and elicitation, researcher reflexivity and duoethnography/collaborative autoethnography. We describe how we, as a donor-conceived adult (Giselle) and a queer woman who would need donor sperm to have a child (Clare), employed TikToks from #donorconceived as prompts to facilitate a sensitive conversation and elicit situated insights. We explore three central insights from applying our method: (1) discomfort as a productive tension; (2) unresolved dilemmas; and (3) discovering parallels in experience. Using TikToks as stimuli, ‘Situated Talk’ contributes an innovative method for generating grounded social media insights.
AbidinC (2021) Mapping internet celebrity on TikTok: Exploring attention economies and visibility labours. Cultural Science Journal12(1): 77–103.
2.
AdamsDLorbachC (2012) Accessing donor conception information in Australia: A call for retrospective access. Journal of Law and Medicine19(4): 707–721.
3.
AhmedS (2014) Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
4.
AllanS (2017) Donor Conception and the Search for Information: From Secrecy and Anonymity to Openness. London: Routledge.
5.
AndreassenR (2018) Mediated Kinship: Gender, Race and Sexuality in Donor Families. London: Routledge.
6.
BackL (2007) The art of Listening. Oxford: Berg.
7.
BellPBellR (1996) “Americanization”: Political and cultural examples from the perspective of “americanized” Australia. American Studies37(1): 5–21.
8.
ByronP (2020) Digital Media, Friendship and Cultures of Care. London: Routledge.
9.
CarastathisGSCohenLKaczmarekE, et al. (2017) Rejected by family for being Gay or lesbian: Portrayals, perceptions, and resilience. Journal of Homosexuality64(3): 289–320.
10.
CavalcanteAPressASenderK (2017) Feminist reception studies in a post-audience age: Returning to audiences and everyday life. Feminist Media Studies17(1): 1–13.
11.
ChadwickR (2021) On the politics of discomfort. Feminist Theory. Epub ahead of print 20 January 2021. 1–19.
12.
ChangHNgunjiriFHernandezKAC (2013) Collaborative Autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
13.
CrawshawDKAdamsDBourneK, et al. (2016) Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: A preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online1(2): 71–80.
14.
CroghanRGriffinCHunterJ, et al. (2008) Young people's Constructions of self: Notes on the sse and analysis of the photo-elicitation methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology11(4): 345–356.
15.
DarrochFSmithI (2021) Establishing identity: How direct-to-consumer genetic testing challenges the assumption of donor anonymity. Family Court Review59(1): 103–120.
16.
DreherT (2009) Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice. Continuum23(4): 445–458.
17.
DugganL (2002) The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In: CastronovoRNelsonDD (eds) Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 175–194.
18.
EdelmanL (2004) No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke University Press.
19.
EghtesadiMFloreaA (2020) Facebook, instagram, reddit and TikTok: A proposal for health authorities to integrate popular social media platforms in contingency planning amid a global pandemic outbreak. Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique111(3): 389–391.
20.
EtheringtonK (2004) Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Our Selves in Research. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
21.
GuilleminMGillamL (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry10(2): 261–280.
22.
HalberstamJ (2003) What's that smell?: Queer temporalities and subcultural lives. International Journal of Cultural Studies6(3): 313–333.
23.
HernandezKCNgunjiriFW (2013) Relationships and communities in autoethnography. In: JonesSHAdamsTEEllisC (eds) Handbook of Autoethnography. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 262–280.
24.
HineC (2015) Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
25.
JinDY (2015) Digital Platforms, Imperialism and Political Culture. London: Routledge.
26.
JørgensenKM (2016) The media go-along: Researching mobilities with media at hand. MedieKultur Journal of Media and Communication Research60: 32–49.
27.
KaufmannK (2018) The smartphone as a snapshot of its use: Mobile media elicitation in qualitative interviews. Mobile Media & Communication6(2): 233–246.
28.
KayeDBVChenXZengJ (2020) The co-evolution of two Chinese mobile short video apps: Parallel platformization of douyin and TikTok. Mobile Media & Communication9(2): 229–253.
29.
KimY (2006) The body, TV talk, and emotion: Methodological reflections. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies6(2): 226–244.
30.
KirbyEWatsonAChurchillB, et al. (2021) Queering the Map: Stories of love, loss and (be)longing within a digital cartographic archive. Media, Culture & Society43(6): 1043–1060. Epub ahead of print 21 January 2021.
31.
KohlEMcCutcheonP (2015) Kitchen table reflexivity: Negotiating positionality through everyday talk. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography22(6): 747–763.
32.
LiBYHoRTH (2019) Unveiling the unspeakable: Integrating video elicitation focus group interviews and participatory video in an action research project on dementia care development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods18(2): 1–10.
33.
LightBBurgessJDuguayS (2018) The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society20(3): 881–900.
34.
MackieVStevensCS (2009) Globalisation and body politics. Asian Studies Review33(3): 257–273.
35.
MacLureM (2013) The wonder of data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies13(4): 228–232.
36.
MøllerKRobardsB (2019) Walking through, going along and scrolling back. Nordicom Review40(s1): 95–109.
37.
NewmanCEPerssonAPrankumarS, et al. (2020) Experiences of family belonging among two generations of sexually diverse Australians. Family Relations69(2): 292–307.
38.
Newton G (in press) Doing reflexivity in research on donor conception: examining moments of bonding and becoming. In: Shaw RM (ed) Reproductive Citizenship: Technologies, Rights and Relationships. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
NordqvistP (2021) Telling reproductive stories: Social scripts, relationality and donor conception. Sociology55(4): 677–695.
40.
PillowW (2003) Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education16(2): 175–196.
41.
PostillJPinkS (2012) Social Media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy Web. Media International Australia145(1): 123–134.
42.
PowerJPerleszABrownR, et al. (2010) Diversity, tradition and family: Australian same-sex attracted parents and their families. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review6(2): 66–81.
43.
RobardsBLincolnS (2017) Uncovering longitudinal life narratives: Scrolling back on facebook. Qualitative Research17(6): 715–730.
44.
RoyRUekusaS (2020) Collaborative autoethnography: “self-reflection” as a timely alternative research approach during the global pandemic. Qualitative Research Journal20(4): 383–392.
45.
SawyerRDNorrisJ (2013) Duoethnography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
SenderK (2012) No hard feelings reflexivity and queer affect. In: RossK (eds) The Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Media. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 207–224.
47.
Southerton C (2021) Research Perspectives on TikTok & Its Legacy Apps| Lip-Syncing and Saving Lives: Healthcare Workers on TikTok. International Journal of Communication 15(1): 3248-3268.
48.
SuYBakerBJDoyleJP, et al. (2020) Fan engagement in 15 s: Athletes’ relationship marketing during a pandemic via TikTok. International Journal of Sport Communication13(3): 436–446.
49.
TikTok (2020, June 18) How TikTok Recommends Videos #ForYou. TikTok. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you.
50.
WangY (2020) Humor and camera view on mobile short-form video apps influence user experience and technology-adoption intent, an example of TikTok (DouYin). Computers in Human Behavior110.
51.
WestonK (1997) Families we Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
52.
ZulliDZulliDJ (2020) Extending the internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, Epub ahead of print 26 December, 2020. 1–19.
