The article contributes to ongoing conversations on digital ethnography as a methodological approach that in the last two decades has gained popularity across a large variety of disciplines and fields. It argues that the principles that lie at the heart of long-term holistic ethnographic fieldwork are of crucial importance for studying new digital worlds, especially communicative practices in private and semi-private digital spaces. It also claims that methodological innovations in the ethnographic study of new digital media are not necessarily beneficial to scientific knowledge production. Finally, the article invites anthropologists to contaminate the interdisciplinary field of digital ethnography with their commitment to long-term holistic fieldwork.
AbidinCDe SetaG (2020) Private messages from the field: confessions on digital ethnography and its discomforts. Journal of Digital Social Research2(1): 1–19.
2.
AiroldiM (2017) Ethnography and the digital fields of social media. International Journal of Social Research Methodology21(6): 661–673.
3.
AlinejadD (2018) Digital ethnography: principles and practice. New Media & Society20(1): 428–431. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817733962c.
4.
AmitV (2000) Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World. London: Routledge.
5.
BarassiV (2015) Activism on the Web: Everyday Struggles against Digital Capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BaymNKMarkhamAN (2009) Introduction: making smart choices on shifting ground. In: BaymNKMarkham AnnetteN (eds) Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method. London: Sage.
7.
BoellstorffT (2008) Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BoellstorffT (2012) Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Methods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BostonN (2015) Libidinal cosmopolitanism: the case of digital sexual encounters in post-enlargement Europe. In: PonzanesiSColpaniG (eds) Postcolonial Transitions in Europe: Contexts, Practices and Politics. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
BroekerF (2024) Love and Technology: An Ethnography of Dating App Users in Berlin. London: Routledge.
11.
BurrellJ (2009) The field site as a network: a strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods21(2): 181–199. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08329699.
12.
CaliandroA (2017) Digital methods for ethnography: analytical concepts for ethnographers exploring social media environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography47: 551.
13.
ColemanG (2010) Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology39: 487–505.
14.
ColemanG (2014) Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous. London: Verso Books.
15.
CostaE (2016) Social Media in Southeast Turkey. London: UCL Press.
16.
CostaE (2018) Affordances-in-practice: an ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society20(10): 3641–3656. DOI: 10.1177/1461444818756290.
17.
CostaEAlinejadD (2020). Experiencing homeland: social media and transnational communication among Kurdish migrants in Northern Italy. Global Perspectives, 1(1): 12783. DOI: 10.1525/gp.2020.12783.
18.
CostaEEsteve-Del-ValleMHagedoornB (2022) Scalable Co-presence: WhatsApp and the Mediation of Personal Relationships during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Social Media + Society8(1). DOI: 10.1177/20563051211069053.
19.
De SetaG (2020) Three lies of digital ethnography. Journal of Digital Social Research2(1): 77–97.
20.
Delli PaoliAD’AuriaV (2021) Digital ethnography: a systematic literature review. Italian Sociological Review11(4S): 243–267.
21.
EdwardsAMHousleyWWilliamsML, et al. (2013) Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(3): 245–260.
HaynesN (2016) Social Media in Northern Chile. London: UCL Press.
24.
HineC (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
25.
HineC (2013) The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
HjorthLHorstHGallowayA, et al. (eds) (2017) The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London: Routledge.
27.
HoneycuttCHerringS (2009) Beyond Microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai’I International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
28.
HorstHDanielM (2006) The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication. London: Berg.
29.
HowellS (2017) Two or three things I love about ethnography. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory7(1): 15–20.
30.
JensenLXBearmanMBoudD, et al. (2022) Digital ethnography in higher education teaching and learning—a methodological review. Higher Education84: 1143–1162. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-022-00838-4.
31.
KeltyC (2008) Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Durham: Duke University Press.
32.
KozinetsRV (2009) Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.
33.
LuptonD (2014) Digital Sociology. Abingdon: Routledge.
34.
MadianouMMillerD (2011) Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. Abingdon: Routledge.
35.
MarcusG (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology24: 95–117.
36.
MarkhamAN (2013) Fieldwork in social media: what would Malinowski do?Qualitative Communication Research2(4): 434–446. DOI: 10.1525/qcr.2013.2.4.434.
37.
MarwickA (2013) Ethnographic and qualitative research on Twitter. In: WellerKBrunsAPuschmannC, et al. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
38.
McDonaldT (2016) Social Media in Rural China. London: UCL Press.
39.
MillerD (2016) Social Media in an English Village. London: UCL Press.
MillerDCostaEHaynesN, et al. (2016) How the World Changed Social Media. London: UCL Press.
42.
MillerD.SinananJ (2017) Visualising Facebook: A Comparative Perspective. London: UCL Press.
43.
MurthyD (2008) Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology42(5): 837–855.
44.
NicolescuR (2017) Social Media in Southeast Italy. London: UCL Press.
45.
OngJC (2017) Queer cosmopolitanism in the disaster zone: ‘my Grindr became the United Nations. International Communication Gazette79(6-7): 656–673. DOI: 10.1177/1748048517727177.
46.
PertierraAC (2018) Media Anthropology for the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.
PinkSLeder MackleyK (2014) Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: art therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies29(2): 146–154.
49.
PinkSTuttDDaintyA, et al. (2010) Ethnographic methodologies for construction research: knowing, practice and interventions. Building Research & Information38(6): 647–659.
50.
PinkS (2016) Digital Ethnography. Berlin: Springer.
51.
PostillJ (2017) Remote ethnography: Studying culture from afar. The Routledge companion to digital ethnography. Routledge, 87–95.
52.
RivoalISalazarNBN (2013) Contemporary ethnographic practice and the value of serendipity. Social Anthropology21(2): 178–185.
53.
RogersR (2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
SinananJ (2017) Social Media in Trinidad. London: UCL Press.
55.
SneeHHineCMoreyY, et al. (2016) Digital methods as mainstream methodology: an introduction. In: SneeHHineCMoreyY, et al. (eds) Digital Methods for Social Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
56.
SpyerJ (2017) Social Media in Emergent Brazil. London: UCL press.
57.
VenkatramenS (2017) Social Media in South India. London: UCL Press.
58.
WangX (2016) Social Media in Industrial China. London: UCL Press.
