Ethnography at a distance or digital ethnography? Methodological reflection on a ICT mediated ethnographic study among Italian female academic workers

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE
Author/s Concetta Russo
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/127 Language Italian
Pages 19 P. 43-61 File size 212 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2022-127003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page .

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This paper proposes a reflection on the critical aspects of implementing an ethnographic study mediated by the use of information and communication tech- nology (ICT), using as a case study a pilot research that was carried between October and December 2020. The recruitment of the study participants was conducted through the use of social media, the communications with the participants was developed via e-mail, the interviews were carried out with a videoconference platform, and also the interaction between the authors needed to analyze and dis- cuss the collected data was conducted using both synchronous and asynchronous online communication. The general aim is to promote a more reflection on the use of ICT in contemporary ethnography.

  1. T. Ahlin, F. Li (2019), «From field sites to field events: Creating the field with information and communication technologies (Icts)», Medicine Anthropology Theory, 6, 2, pp. 1-24.
  2. S. Anderson (2006), «Imagined communities», Literary Criticism and Cultural Theory, 49, pp. 81-110.
  3. A. Appadurai (1996), Modernity al large: cultural dimensions of globalization, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
  4. R. Atkinson (1998), The life story interview, London, Sage.
  5. M.J. Barratt, A. Maddox (2016), «Active engagement with stigmatised communities through digital ethnography», Qualitative Research, 16, 6, pp. 701-19.
  6. F. Battistelli, M.G. Galantino (2020), Sociologia e politica del coronavirus, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  7. U. Beck (2000), La società del rischio, Roma, Carocci.
  8. E. Bellè, R. Bozzon, A. Murgia, C. Peroni, E. Rapetti (2015), «Fare ricerca in e sull’Accademia. Vecchie questioni metodologiche e nuove pratiche di osservazione riflessiva», Ais Journal of Sociology, 5, pp. 143-54.
  9. L. Blackwell, J. Glover (2008), Women’s scientific employment and family formation: a longi- tudinal perspective, Gender, Work and Organization, 15, 6, pp. 579-99.
  10. S. Bologna, A. Fumagalli (1997), Il lavoro autonomo di seconda generazione. Scenari del post- fordismo in Italia, Milano, Feltrinelli.
  11. M. Bonazzi (2014), La digitalizzazione della vita quotidiana, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  12. T. Bonini (2020), «L’immaginazione sociologica e le conseguenze sociali del Covid-19», Me- diascapes Journal, 15, pp. 13-23.
  13. P. Bourdieu (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  14. P. Bourdieu (1992), «Thinking about limits», Theory, Culture and Society, 9, 1, pp. 37-49.
  15. A. Busetta, D. Mendola, D. Vignoli (2019), «Persistent joblessness and fertility intentions», Demographic Research, 40, pp. 185-218.
  16. A. Carreri, A. Dordoni (2020), «Academic and Research Work from Home During the CO- VID-19 Pandemic in Italy: A Gender Perspective», Italian Sociological Review, 10, 3S, pp. 821-45,
  17. J.K. Cater (2011), «Skype a cost-effective method for qualitative research», Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Journal, 4, pp. 10-7.
  18. D. Cayley (2020), «Questions about the current pandemic from the point of view of Ivan Il- lich», Quodlibet, 8, pp. 1-17.
  19. J. Clifford, G.E. Marcus (eds.) (1986), Writing Culture, Berkeley, University of California Press.
  20. V. Crapanzano (2013), Tuhami: portrait of a Moroccan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  21. J.W. Creswell (2007), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approa- ches, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2nd ed.
  22. H. Deakin, K. Wakefield (2013), «Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers», Qualitative Research, 14, 5, pp. 603-16, DOI: 10.1177/1468794113488126
  23. A. Decataldo, C. Russo (2022), Metodologia e tecniche partecipative. La ricerca sociologica nel tempo della complessità, Milano-Torino, Pearson Italia.
  24. L. Denicolai, E. Farinacci (2020), «Te lo dico con un video. I linguaggi audiovisivi del quoti- diano social», L’avventura, 6, numero speciale, pp. 145-65.
  25. G. Di Franco (2010), Il campionamento nelle scienze umane. Teoria e pratica, Milano, Fran- coAngeli.
  26. D. Domínguez, A. Beaulieu, A. Estalella, E. Gómez, B. Schnettler, R. Read (2007), «Virtual ethnography», Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8, 3, pp. 1-4.
  27. W.C. Dowling (2011), Ricoeur on time and narrative: An introduction to Temps et récit, Paris, University of Notre Dame Press.
  28. A. Favretto, A. Maturo, S. Tomelleri (2021), L’impatto sociale del Covid-19, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  29. F.E. Fox, M. Morris, N. Rumsey (2007), «Doing synchronous online focus groups with young
  30. people methodological reflections», Qualitative Health Research, 17, pp. 539-547.
  31. C. Geertz (1973), The interpretation of cultures, New York, Basic Books, vol. 5019.
  32. G. Giarelli, G. Vicarelli (2020), «Politiche e sistemi sanitari al tempo della pandemia da Co- vid-19: una lettura sociologica», Ais, 16, pp. 69-86.
  33. G. Gobo (2008), Con giustificato ritardo. La nascita della ricerca qualitativa in Italia, in D. Silverman, Manuale di ricerca sociale e qualitativa, Roma, Carocci.
  34. E. Goffman (1967), Il rituale dell’interazione, Bologna, il Mulino.
  35. R.J. Hamilton, B.J. Bowers (2006), «Internet recruitment and e-mail interviews in qualitative studies», Qualitative Health Research, 16, pp. 821-35.
  36. M. Hammersley, P. Atkinson (1995), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London, Routledge, 2nd ed.
  37. U. Hannerz (1992), Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning, New York, Columbia University Press.
  38. C. Hine (2000), Virtual ethnography, London, Sage.
  39. C. Hine (2004), «Social research methods and the Internet: A thematic review», Sociological Research Online, 9, 2, pp. 110-6.
  40. M. Holbraad (2017), The contingency of concepts: transcendental deduction and ethnographic expression in anthropological thinking, in P. Charbonnier, G. Salmon, P. Skafish (eds.), Comparative metaphysics: ontology after anthropology, London, Rowman & Littlefield.
  41. T. Hooley, J. Wellens, J. Marriott (2012), What is Online research? Using the Internet for social science research, London, AandC Black.
  42. H.A. Horst, D. Miller (eds.) (2020), Digital anthropology, London, Routledge.
  43. N. Illingworth (2006), «Content, context, reflexivity and the qualitative research encounter: Telling stories in the virtual realm», Sociological Research Online, 11, 1, pp. 62-73.
  44. R. Janghorban, R.L. Roudsari, A. Taghipour (2014), «Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research», International Journal of Qualita- tive Studies on Health and Well-being, 9, 1, p. 24152,
  45. D. Kidd (2018), Social media freaks: Digital identity in the network society, London, Routledge.
  46. R.V. Kozinets (2010), «Netnography: The marketer’s secret weapon», White paper, 2-11, pp. 1-13.
  47. R.V. Kozinets (2019), Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research, London, Sage.
  48. N. Le Feuvre, P. Bataille, S. Kradolfer, M. del Rio Carral, M. Sautier (2018), The gendered di- versification of academic career paths in comparative perspective, in A. Murgia, B. Poggio (eds.), Gender and precarious research careers: A comparative analysis, London, Routledge.
  49. A. Ledeneva (2018), The Ambivalence of Favour. Paradoxes of Russia’s Economy of Favours, in D. Henig, N. Makovicky (eds.), Economies of Favour after Socialism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  50. L. Lombi (2015), «La ricerca sociale al tempo dei Big Data: sfide e prospettive», Studi di so- ciologia, 2, pp. 215-27.
  51. D. Lupton (2015), Digital Sociology, London, Routledge. D. Lupton (2020), Doing fieldwork in a pandemic (crowd-sourced document), https://docs.goo-
  52. gle.com/document/d/1clGjGABB2h2qbduTgfqribHmog9B6P0NvMgVui HZCl8/edit.
  53. M. Maneri, F. Quassoli, O. Ricci (2019), «#Jesuis... whatever. Le reazioni agli eventi terroristici al tempo dei social media: una prospettiva di analisi», Studi culturali, 16, 1, pp. 163-86.
  54. G.E. Marcus (1995), «Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography», Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 1, pp. 95-117.
  55. D. Miller (2020), «Making Friends with Ethnographic Monographs», Anthropology Now, 12, 2, pp. 61-9.
  56. R.L. Miller (2000), Analysing life histories, in Researching Life Stories and Family Histories, London, Sage.
  57. T. Miller (2005), Making sense of motherhood: A narrative approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  58. A. Minello, C. Russo (2021), «Dentro lo schema. Accademiche italiane tra ricerca e didattica», Sociologia del lavoro, 160, pp. 88-109.
  59. R. Modena, F. Sabatini (2012), «I would if I could: Precarious employment and childbearing intentions in Italy», Review of Economics of the Household, 10, 1, pp. 77-97.
  60. M.C.N. Morelli (2019), «Le Social Street come forme di ordinaria azione civica: prospettive di ricerca», Studi di Sociologia, 4, pp. 397-412.
  61. A. Murgia, B. Poggio (eds.) (2018), Gender and precarious research careers: A comparative analysis, London, Routledge.
  62. D. Murthy (2011), Emergent digital ethnographic methods for social research, in S.N. Hesse- Biber (ed.), The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  63. K. O’Reilly (2012), Ethnographic methods, London, Routledge.
  64. V. Pandolfini (2017), Il sociologo e l’algoritmo. L’analisi dei dati testuali al tempo di internet, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  65. I. Picardi (2017), La dimensione di genere nelle carriere accademiche. Riflessività e cambiamento
  66. nel progetto pilota Genovate@ Unina, Napoli, FedOA-Federico II University Press, vol. 2.
  67. S. Pink (2011), «Sensory digital photography: Re-thinking “moving” and the image», Visual Studies, 26, 1, pp. 4-13.
  68. S. Pink (2016), Digital ethnography, in S. Kubitschko, A. Kaun (eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research, New York, Springer International Publishing.
  69. S. Pink, H. Horst, J. Postill, L. Hjorth, T. Lewis, J. Tacchi (2015), Digital ethnography: Princi- ples and practice, London, Sage.
  70. L. Robinson, D. Halle (2002), «Digitization, the Internet, and the Arts: eBay, Napster, SAG, and e-Books», Qualitative Sociology, 25, 3, pp. 359-83.
  71. L. Robinson, J. Schulz (2011), New fieldsites, new methods: new ethnographic opportunities, in W. Chapter (eds.), The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  72. C. Russo (2017), Da pazienti a cittadini: per un’antropologia del lavoro psicoterapeutico a Cuba, Bologna, Clueb.
  73. C. Russo, A. Minello (2021), «Labouring Academia: Higher Education Never-Ending Youth and Geriatric Pregnancy Issues», Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 13, 2, pp.145-70.
  74. M. Savvakis, M. Tzanakis (2004), «The researcher, the field and the issue of entry: Two cases of ethnographic research concerning asylums in Greece», Sociological Research Online, 9, 2, pp. 86-97.
  75. T.A. Schwandt (2000), Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, her- meneutics, and social constructionism, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, London, Sage.
  76. D. Silverman (2015), Interpreting qualitative data, London, Sage. K. Stewart, M. Williams (2005), «Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research», Qualitative Research, 5, pp. 395-416.
  77. J.R. Sullivan (2012), «Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative inter- views?», The Hilltop Review, 6, pp. 54-60.
  78. B. Tedlock (2005), «The observation of participation and the emergence of public ethno- graphy», The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3, pp. 467-81.
  79. S. Turkle (2005), The second self: Computers and the human spirit, Cambridge, Mit Press.
  80. S. Turkle (2011), Life on the Screen, New York, Simon and Schuster.
  81. R. Turner (1989), Deconstructing «the field», in J. Gubrium, D. Silverman (eds.), The Politics of Field Research: Sociology beyond Enlightenment, London, Sage.
  82. J. Van Maanen (1995), Representation in ethnography, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  83. D. Vignoli, V. Tocchioni, A. Mattei (2020), «The Impact of Job Uncertainty on First-birth Postponment», Advances in Life Course Research, 45, September, 100308.
  84. P. Watzlawick, J.H. Beavin, D.D. Jackson (1967), «Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns», Pathologies, and Paradoxes, ??, pp. 48-72.
  85. F. Zini (2020), «Le conseguenze bioetiche dell’emergenza sanitaria e la biopolitica della pan- demia», Società e diritti, 5, 10, pp. 89-98.
  86. J.O. Zinn (2010), «Biography, Risk and Uncertainty. Is there Common Ground for Biographical Research and Risk Research? [59 paragraphs]», Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11, 1, Art. 15, -- http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1001153.

Concetta Russo, Etnografia a distanza o etnografia digitale? Una riflessione metodologica su uno studio etnografico tra le lavoratrici accademiche italiane mediato dalle Ict in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 127/2022, pp 43-61, DOI: 10.3280/SR2022-127003