There are debates across disciplines regarding how to research and represent digital cultures ethically. Against this background, there is a need to reflect on the practice and ethics of online ethnography. Ambiguities surrounding researcher “participation” online have led this to be equated largely with observation. This has deprivileged the act of listening in both research practice and the methodological and ethical debates that underpin this. Utilizing ethnographic research into self-harm and social media as a critical lens, this article advocates for listening as a mode of participating in, as well as observing, online spaces. In proposing “active listening” and “adaptive listening” to explore the polyphonic and heterogeneous nature of social media, we argue that listening is key to representing online spaces in all their cultural diversity and emotional complexity. Reflecting on listening is necessary to forging a practical ethics of online ethnography, and is relevant to digital research more widely.
AndalibiN.OzturkP.ForteA. (2017). Sensitive self-disclosures, responses, and social support on Instagram: The case of #Depression. In Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Conference (pp. 1485-1500). Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2998181
2.
BackL. (2007). The art of listening. Oxford, UK: Berg.
3.
BakhtinM. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BarthesR. (1977). Image music text. London, England: Fontana Press.
5.
BeattyP. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In PresserS.CouperM. P.LesslerJ. T.RothgebJ. M.SingerE. (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions (pp. 45-66). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
7.
CohenA.RapportN. (1995). Questions of consciousness. London, England: Routledge.
8.
CrawfordK. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23, 525-535.
9.
CrawfordK. (2011). Listening not lurking: The neglected form of participation. In GriefH.HjorthL.LasénA.Lobet-MarisC. (Eds.), Cultures of participation: Media practices, politics and society (pp. 63-77). Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
10.
DeuzeM. (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal components of a digital culture. The Information Society, 22, 63-75.
11.
DysonM.HartlingL.ShulhanJ.ChisholmA.MilneA.SundarP.. . .NewtonA. (2016). A systematic review of social media use to discuss and view deliberate self-harm acts. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0155813.
12.
EricksonF. (1984). What makes school ethnography “ethnographic”?Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 15, 51-66.
13.
FalzonM. (2016). Introduction: Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research. In FalzonM. (Ed.), Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
ForseyM. (2010). Ethnography as participant listening. Ethnography, 11, 558-572.
15.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
16.
Gil de ZúñigaH.MolyneuxL.ZhengP. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612-634.
HineC. (2008). Overview, virtual ethnography: Modes, varieties, affordances. In FieldingN.LeeR. M.BlankG. (Eds.), Handbook of online research methods (pp. 257-270). London, England: Sage.
19.
HorstH.MillerD. (2012). Digital anthropology. London, England: Berg.
20.
KozinetsR. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61-72.
21.
KozinetsR. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London, England: Sage.
22.
Kulavuz-OnalD.VásquezC. (2013). Reconceptualising fieldwork in a netnography of an online community of English language teachers. Ethnography and Education, 8, 224-238.
23.
LavisA. (2017). Food porn, pro-anorexia and the viscerality of virtual affect: exploring eating in cyberspace. Geoforum, 84, 198-205.
24.
LewisS.HeathN.St DenisJ.NobleR. (2011). The scope of nonsuicidal self-injury on YouTube. Pediatrics, 127, e552-e557.
25.
MarcusG. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
26.
MarcusG. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
MillerD.SlaterD. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford, UK: Berg.
28.
MorenoM. A.TonA.SelkieE.EvansY. (2016). Secret Society 123: Understanding the language of self-harm on Instagram. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, 78-84.
29.
NaslundJ. A.GrandeS. W.AschbrennerK. A.ElwynG. (2014). Naturally occurring peer support through social media: The experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110171.
30.
NoceraJ. (2002). Ethnography and hermeneutics in cybercultural research accessing IRC virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(2).
31.
PinkS. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
32.
PurdyM. (1997). What is listening. In PurdyM.BorisoffD. (Eds.), Listening in everyday life: A personal and professional approach (pp. 1-20). Lanham, MA: University Press of America.
33.
RobinsonJ.CoxG.BaileyE.HetrickS.RodriguesM.FisherS.HerrmanH. (2016). Social media and suicide prevention: A systematic review. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 10, 103-121.
34.
RobinsonL.SchulzJ. (2009). New avenues for sociological inquiry: Evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 43, 685-698.
35.
RosenbergA. (2010). Virtual world research ethics and the private/public distinction. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 23-37.
36.
RotmanD.PreeceJ.HeY.DruinA. (2012). Extreme ethnography: Challenges for research in large scale online environments. In 2012 iConference (pp. 207-214). Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2132176.2132203
37.
Scott-JonesJ.WattS. (2010). Ethnography in social science practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
SekoY.LewisS. (2018). The self—Harmed, visualized, and reblogged: Remaking of self-injury narratives on Tumblr. New Media & Society, 20, 180-198.
39.
SteinmetzK. F. (2012). Message received: Virtual ethnography in online message boards. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11, 26-39.
40.
TuckerI. M.LavisA. (2019). Temporalities of mental distress: Crisis, care and digital immediacy in online support. Sociology of Health & Illness, 41, 132-146.
41.
VarisP. (2016). Digital ethnography. In GeorgakopoulouA.SpiliotiT. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 55-68). London, England: Routledge.
42.
WhitingA.WilliamsD. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362-369.
