Feminist Ethnography in Cyberspace: Imagining Families in the Cloud

Abstract

This article explores the relevance of the ethnographic study of the Internet for feminist scholars interested in families. The online world is an emerging field site for feminist scholars investigating spousal, parental, and kin relations, one that opens up new arenas of study but also requires novel methodological approaches. The proliferation of cyber-communities and computer-mediated communication has radically altered how we live, communicate, and gather, share, and produce knowledge. This is particularly true for families, as new media technologies have impacted how families form, interact, and understand themselves and the world. Web 2.0 offers the potential for new imagined communities, new forms of social and political resistance, and new identities and networks that can transcend or reinforce traditional understandings of community, nation, and family. This article begins with a critical review of relevant literature (primarily from the United States) and offers several case studies that show the relevance of cyber-ethnography to feminist researchers interested in families. As the cases illustrate, ethnographers face new methodological and ethical issues associated with cyber studies and cyber-ethnography. Given the changing media landscapes families find themselves in, scholars of gender and families are well served to think through the effects of new media on families and the methodological benefits and challenges for studying these new forms of communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abbasgholizadeh, M. (2014). “To do something we are unable to do in Iran”: Cyberspace, the public sphere, and the Iranian women’s movement. Signs, 39, 831–840. doi:10.1086/675722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adler, P., & Adler, P. (2007). The demedicalization of self-injury from psychopathology to sociological deviance. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 537–570. doi:10.1177/0891241607301968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adler, C., & Zarchin, Y. (2002). The “virtual focus group”: Using the internet to reach pregnant women on home bed rest. JOGN Nursing, 31, 418–427. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00064.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alexanian, J. (2006). Publicly intimate online: Iranian web logs in southern California. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 26, 134–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anagnost, A. (2000). Scenes of misrecognition: Maternal citizenship in the age of transnational adoption. Positions, 8, 389–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Apple, M. W. (2011). Rightist education and godly technology: Cultural politics, gender, and the work of home schooling. REMIE - Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 1, 5–33. doi:10.4452/remie.2011.01.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Atkinson, S., & Ayers, A. (2010). The potential of the internet for alternative caring practices for health. Anthropology & Medicine, 17, 75–86. doi:10.1080/13648470903572366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barkun, M. (1998). Conspiracy theories as stigmatized knowledge: The basis for a new age racism? In J. Kaplan & T. Bjorgo (Eds.), Nation and race: The developing Euro-American subculture (pp. 58–72). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Battles, H. (2010). Exploring ethical and methodological issues in internet-based research with adolescents. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beaulieu, A. (2010). From co-location to co-presence: Shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40, 453–470. doi:10.1177/0306312709359219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beddows, E. (2008). The methodological issues associated with internet-based research. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 6, 124–139.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Belch, M. A., Krentler, K. A., & Willis-Flurry, L. A. (2005). Teen internet mavens: Influence in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 58, 569–575. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bell, D. (2001). Introduction to cybercultures. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berkule-Silberman, S. B., Dreyer, B. P., Huberman, H. S., Klass, P. E., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2010). Sources of parenting information in low SES mothers. Clinical Pediatrics, 49, 580–586. doi:10.1177/0009922809351092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Best, S., & Krueger, B. (2004). ‘Internet data collection’, series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blasco, P. (2012). ‘A wondrous adventure’: Mutuality and individuality in internet adoption narratives. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18, 330–348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01746.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boonmongkon, P., Ojanen, T. T., Samakkeekarom, R., Samoh, N., Iamsilpa, R., Topananan, S., Cholratana, M., & Guadamuz, T. E. (2014). ‘She met her (boy)friend online’: Negotiating gender identity and sexuality among young Thai women in online space. Culture, Health and Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 15, 1162–1174. doi:10.1080/13691058.2013.809609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Broom, A. (2005). Virtually healthy: The impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 325–345. doi:10.1177/1049732304272916.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown, A., & Thomas, M. E. (2014). “i just like knowing they can look at it and realize who i really am”: Recognition and the limits of girlhood agency on MySpace. Signs, 39, 949–972. doi:10.1086/675544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bryson, M. (2004). When Jill jacks in: Queer women and the Net. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 239–254. doi:10.1080/1468077042000309928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bulled, N. (2011). “You can find anything online”: Biocommunicability of cyber-health information and its impact on how the NET generation accesses health care. Human Organization, 70, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell, A. (2006). The search for authenticity: An exploration of an online skinhead newsgroup. New Media & Society, 8, 269–294. doi:10.1177/1461444806059875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Carter, D. (2005). Living in virtual communities: An ethnography of human relationships in cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 148–167. doi:10.1080/13691180500146235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 1). Madlen: Blackwell.

  25. Chakraborty, K. (2012). Virtual mate-seeking in the urban slums of Kolkata, India. South Asian Popular Culture, 10, 197–216. doi:10.1080/14746689.2012.682871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen, G. M. (2013a). Don’t call me that: A techno-feminist critique of the term “Mommy Blogger”. Mass Communication and Society, 16, 510–532. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.737888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen, G. M. (2013b). Why do women bloggers use social media? Recreation and information motivations outweigh engagement motivations. New Media & Society, 17, 24–40. doi:10.1177/1461444813504269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clegg Smith, K. M. (2004). Electronic eavesdropping: The ethical issues involved in con-ducting a virtual ethnography. In M. D. Johns, S.-L. S. Chen, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics (pp. 223–238). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen, N. (2011). Wikipedia ponders its gender-skewed contributions. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html.

  30. Coleman, G. (2010). Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 487–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Constable, N. (2000). Romance on a global stage: Pen pals, virtual ethnography, and mail order marriages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 320–334. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Daniel, C. (2014). “Taming the media monster”: Teen pregnancy and the neoliberal safety (Inter)Net. Signs, 39, 973–998. doi:10.1086/675545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. De Choudhury, M., Counts, S., Horvitz, E. J., & Hoff, A. (2014, February). Characterizing and predicting postpartum depression from shared facebook data. In S. Fussell & W. Lutters (General chairs), Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 626–638). Baltimore: ACM. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531675

  35. Deomampo, D. (2014). Consumption, community, and biosociality: Creating communities of parents through transnational surrogacy. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

  36. Doty, J., & Dworkin, J. (2014). Parents’ of adolescents use of social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 349–355. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dworkin, J., Connell, J., & Doty, J. (2013). A literature review of parents’ online behavior. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7. doi:10.5817/CP2013-2-2.

  38. Elgesem, D. (2002). What is special about the ethical issues in online research? Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 193–203. doi:10.1023/A:1021320510186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Farrell, D., & Petersen, J. C. (2010). The growth of internet research methods and the reluctant sociologist. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 114–125. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00318.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fay, M. (2007). Mobile subjects, mobile methods: Doing virtual ethnography in a feminist online network. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8.

  41. Ferber, A. (1998). White man falling: Race, gender, and White supremacy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ferber, A. (2004). Introduction. In A. Ferber (Ed.), Home-grown hater: Gender and organized racism (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 420–439. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00711.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gajjala, R. (2002). An interrupted postcolonial/feminist cyberethnography: Complicity and resistance in the “Cyberfield”. Feminist Media Studies, 2, 177–193. doi:10.1080/14680770220150854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gajjala, R., & Altman, M. (2006). Producing cyber-selves through technosatial praxis: Studying through doing. In P. Liam[uttong (Ed.), Health research in cyberspace: Methodological, practical, and personal issues. New York: Nova.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 52–84. doi:10.1177/0891241607310839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Goodsell, T., & Williamson, O. (2008). The case of the Brick Huggers: The practice of an online community. City & Community, 7, 251–271. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00260.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hallett, R. E., & Barber, K. (2014). Ethnographic research in a cyber era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43, 306–330. doi:10.1177/0891241613497749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35, 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hertz, R., & Mattes, J. (2011). Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers new families, clans, and the internet. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1129–1155. doi:10.1177/0192513X11404345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hine, C. (2009). How can qualitative internet researchers defined the boundaries of their projects? In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. doi:10.1111/j.083-6101.2005.tb00238.x.

  53. Hughey, M. W. (2008). Virtual (Br)others and (Re)sisters authentic Black fraternity and sorority identity on the internet. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37, 528–560. doi:10.1177/0891241607309987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Humphreys, L., & Barker, T. (2007). Modernity and the mobile phone: Exploring tensions about dating and sex in Indonesia. M/C Journal, 10(1).

  55. Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44, 363–379. doi:10.1023/A:1010937901821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2010). Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 20, 523–532. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Johnson-Hanks, J. (2007). Women on the market: Marriage, consumption, and the internet in urban Cameroon. American Ethnologist, 34, 642–658. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.4.642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kanayama, T. (2003). Ethnographic research on the experience of Japanese elderly people online. New Media & Society, 5, 267–288. doi:10.1177/1461444803005002007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm: An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30, 3778–3789. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kawash, S. (2011). New directions in motherhood studies. Signs, 36, 969–1003. doi:10.1086/658637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kaya, L. P. (2009). Dating in a sexually segregated society: Embodied practices of online romance in Irbid, Jordan. Anthropological Quarterly, 82, 251–278. doi:10.1353/anq.0.0043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kendall, L. (1998). Meaning and identity in “cyberspace”: The performance of gender, class, and race online. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 129–153. doi:10.1525/si.1998.21.2.129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kleinman, S. (2004). Researching OURNET: A case study of a multiple methods approach. In M. D. Johns, S.-L. S. Chen, & G. J. Hall (Eds.), Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics (pp. 48–62). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lee, M. (2006). What’s missing in feminist research in new information and communication technologies? Feminist Media Studies, 6, 191–210. doi:10.1080/14680770600645168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lloyd, S. A., Few, A. L., & Allen, K. R. (2007). Feminist theory, methods, and praxis in family studies: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 447–451. doi:10.1177/0192513X06297467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mamo, L. (2007). Queering reproduction: Achieving pregnancy in the age of technoscience. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Mamo, L. (2013). Queering the fertility clinic. Journal of Medical Humanities, 34, 227–239. doi:10.1007/s10912-013-9210-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Manning, J. C. (2006). The impact of internet pornography on marriage and the family: A review of the research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 13, 131–165. doi:10.1080/10720160600870711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Markham, A. N. (2004). The internet as research context. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 358–374). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mathy, R. M., Kerr, D. L., & Haydin, B. M. (2003). Methodological rigor and ethical considerations in Internet-mediated research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40, 77–85. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.40.1-2.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McDaniel, B. T., Coyne, S. M., & Holmes, E. K. (2012). New mothers and media use: Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 1509–1517. doi:10.1007/s10995-011-0918-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005). The internet and family and acquaintance sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 10, 49–60. doi:10.1177/1077559504271917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Mitra, A., & Cohen, E. J. (1999). Analysing the web: Directions and challenges. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 179–202). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  75. Moore, L. J., & Grady, M. (2011). Putting “daddy” in the cart: Ordering sperm online. In M. Nash (Ed.), Reframing reproduction: Conceiving gendered experiences (pp. 185-201). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

  76. Morrison, A. (2011). “Suffused by feeling and affect”: The intimate public of personal mommy blogging. Biography, 34, 37–55. doi:10.1353/bio.2011.0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42, 837–855. doi:10.1177/0038038508094565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nelson, M., & Otnes, C. (2005). Exploring cross-cultural ambivalence: A netnography of intercultural wedding message boards. Journal of Business Research, 58, 89–95. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00477-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Nemeth, D., & Gropper, R. (2008). A cyber-ethnographic foray into GR&T internet photo blogs. Romance Studies, 18(1), 39–70. doi:10.3828/rs.2008.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Noonan, E. J. (2007). Adoption and the Guatemalan journey to American parenthood. Childhood, 14, 301–319. doi:10.1177/0907568207079211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Plantin, L., & Daneback, K. (2009). Parenthood, information and support on the internet. A literature review of research on parents and professionals online. BMC Family Practice, 10, 34. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-34.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Ruhleder, K. (2000). The virtual ethnographer: Fieldwork in distributed electronic environments. Field Methods, 12, 3–17. doi:10.1177/1525822X0001200101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rybas, N., & Gajjala, R. (2007). Developing cyberethnographic research methods for understanding digitally mediated identities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8.

  85. Scott, D. (2002). Matchmaker, matchmaker, find me a mate: A cultural examination of a virtual community of single Mormons. Journal of Media and Religion, 1, 201–216. doi:10.1207/S15328415JMR0104_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Shi, L. (2014). Micro-blogs, online forums, and the birth-control policy: Social media and the politics of reproduction in China. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 38, 115–132. doi:10.1007/s11013-013-9351-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Statzel, R. S. (2006). The apartheid conscience: Gender, race, and re-imagining the White nation in cyberspace. Ethnic Studies Review, 29(2), 20–45.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Statzel, R. S. (2008). Cybersupremacy: The new face and form of White supremacist activism. In M. Boler (Ed.), Tactics in hard times: Practices and spaces of new media. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Turow, J. (2001). Family boundaries, commercialism, and the Internet: A framework for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 73–86. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00067-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Walstrom, M. (2000). “You know, who’s the thinnest?”: Combating surveillance and creating safety in coping with eating disorders online. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3, 761–783. doi:10.1089/10949310050191755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Walstrom, M. (2004). Ethics and engagement in communication scholarship: Analyzing public, online support groups as researcher/participant-experiencer. In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 174–202). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  92. Wang, R., Bianchi, S. M., & Raley, S. B. (2005). Teenagers’ internet use and family rules: A research note. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1249–1258. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00214.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Whitty, M., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the development of online relationships. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4, 623–630. doi:10.1089/109493101753235223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Wilson, S. M., & Peterson, L. C. (2002). The anthropology of online communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 449–467. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.08543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zacharias, U., & Arthurs, J. (2007). Introduction: Feminist ethnographers in digital ecologies. Feminist Media Studies, 7, 203–204. doi:10.1080/14680770701286714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The author did not receive funding to conduct this research. The author knows of no known conflicts of interest regarding the publication of

No original new research is published in this article, rather the article involves a review of previously published literature, therefor informed consent documentation is not required.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Bjork-James.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjork-James, S. Feminist Ethnography in Cyberspace: Imagining Families in the Cloud. Sex Roles 73, 113–124 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0507-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • New media
  • Family
  • Gender
  • Digital ecology
  • Internet
  • Cyberethnography