Advertisement

Appnography: Modifying Ethnography for App-Based Culture

  • Luc S. Cousineau
  • Harrison Oakes
  • Corey W. Johnson
Chapter

Abstract

Dating and courtship practices have evolved with the introduction of automobiles, birth control pills, telephones, answering machines, and the Internet. The most recent of these innovations is geo-social networking applications (GSNAs)—apps that use profiles and device locations to facilitate interaction in real time and in-person meetings, often with the explicit intent for social and/or sexual interaction. This real-time interface makes GSNAs immensely popular, but this also means they offer an important lens into contemporary dating and sexual social relations. Despite their popularity, GSNAs have only recently garnered academic interest. To address this significant gap, we highlight the contributions of feminist and queer theoretical frameworks for understanding digital culture and explore how GSNAs are (re)shaping gender identities within straight, bisexual, lesbian, and gay communities. The positive and negative impacts of GSNAs on sexual relationships, subsequent quality of life, and how public and private leisure spaces are being transformed through the use of GSNAs are important points of interest with this modified methodological approach.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientation, objects, others. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, A. (2015, August 11). I became an ice-cold Tinder assassin. Elle. Retrieved from http://www.elle.com
  3. Barlett, C. P. (2015). Anonymously hurting others online: The effect of anonymity on cyberbullying frequency. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlett, C. P., Gentile, D. A., & Chew, C. (2016). Predicting cyberbullying from anonymity. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benbunan-Fich, R. (2016). The ethics of online research with unsuspecting users: From A/B testing to C/D experimentation. Research Ethics, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116680664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, 17, 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boellstorff, T. (2016). For whom the ontology tolls: Theorizing the digital real. Current Anthropology, 57, 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1086/687362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brubaker, J. R., Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2016). Departing glances: A sociotechnical account of ‘leaving’ Grindr. New Media & Society, 18, 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814542311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ceglowski, D. (2000). Research as relationship. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040000600106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chua, L. J. (2014). Mobilizing gay Singapore: Rights and resistance in an authoritarian state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chun, W. H. K. (2006). Control and freedom: Power and paranoia in the age of fiber optics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena. Signs, 30, 1801–1825. https://doi.org/10.1086/427525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coupland, J. (1996). Dating advertisement: Discourses of the commodified self. Discourse & Society, 7, 187–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels, J. (2009). Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37, 101–124. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27655141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feeld Ltd. (2017). Feeld – Dating for couples and single. iTunes Preview. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
  18. Green, A. I. (2014). The sexual fields framework. In A. I. Green (Ed.), Sexual fields: Toward a sociology of collective sexual life (pp. 25–56). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grindr. (n.d-a). About. Grindr. Retrieved from https://www.grindr.com
  20. Grindr. (n.d-b). Advertise with Grindr. Grindr. Retrieved from https://www.grindr.com
  21. Gross, L. (2007). Foreword. In K. O’Riordan & D. J. Phillips (Eds.), Queer online: Media, technology, & sexuality (pp. vii–vix). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality and Culture, 16, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horne, P., & Lewis, R. (1997). Visual culture. In A. Medhurst & S. Munt (Eds.), Lesbian and gay studies: A critical introduction (pp. 99–112). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, C. W., & Cousineau, L. S. (2018). Manning up and manning on: Masculinities, hegemonic masculinity, and leisure studies. In D. C. Parry (Ed.), Feminisms in leisure studies: Advancing a fourth wave (pp. 126–148). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeling, K. (2014). Queer OS. Cinema Journal, 53(2), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kincaid, J. (2009, Mar 25). Gay dating makes its way to the iPhone. TechCrunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com
  27. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 3–26). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2000). Performing technology’s stories: On social constructivism, performance, and performativity. Technology and Culture, 41, 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2000.0167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levy, D. L., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). What does the Q mean? Including queer voices in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011400485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2016). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linnes, C., Metcalf, B. R., & Shahijan, M. K. (2017). The future of apps: A smart investment for business. In S. Rezaei (Ed.), Apps management and e-commerce transactions in real-time (pp. 293–313). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lupton, D. (2015). Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(4), 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maher, F., & Tetreault, M. K. (2001). The feminist classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Manago, A. M. (2013). Negotiating a sexy masculinity on social networking sites. Feminism & Psychology, 23, 478–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353513487549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manovich, L. (2006). The poetics of augmented space. Visual Communication, 5, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357206065527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  39. Matney, L. (2015, September 16). Oscar Meyer releases Sizzl, a dating app for bacon lovers. TechCrunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com
  40. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Mishna, F., McLuckie, A., & Saini, M. (2009). Real-world dangers in an online reality: A qualitative study examining online relationships and cyber abuse. Social Work Research, 33, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/33.2.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mowlabocus, S. (2010). Gaydar culture: Gay men, technology and embodiment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Nayar, P. K. (2010). An introduction to new media and cybercultures. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. nobullying.com. (2016). The real effects of cyber bullying. NOBullying.com. Retrieved from https://nobullying.com
  45. O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Omernick, E., & Sood, S. O. (2013). The impact of anonymity in online communities. In Proceedings of the ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing. Retrieved from http://labfs.eecs.northwestern.edu
  47. Paasonen, S. (2011). Revisiting cyberfeminism. Communications, 36, 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2011.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parks, L. (2015). ‘Stuff you can kick’: Toward a theory of media infrastructures. In P. Svensson & D. Goldberg (Eds.), Between humanities and the digital (pp. 355–373). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pavlidis, A., & Fullagar, S. (2013). Narrating the multiplicity of ‘derby grrrl’: Exploring intersectionality and the dynamics of affect in roller derby. Leisure Sciences, 35(5), 422–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perry Street Software, Inc. (n.d.). SCRUFF. SCRUFF. Retrieved from https://www.scruff.com
  51. Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Race, K. (2015). Speculative pragmatism and intimate arrangements: Online hook-up devices in gay life. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17, 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.930181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  54. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Riebel, J., Jaeger, R. S., & Fischer, U. C. (2009). Cyberbullying in Germany: An exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51, 298–314. Retrieved from https://doaj.org.Google Scholar
  56. Rodat, S. (2014). Cyberqueer: Major topics and issues in current research. Revista Româna de Sociologie, 25, 429–442. Retrieved from http://revista.acadsudest.ro/pdf-uri/nr.5-6-2014/03-SimonaR.pdf.Google Scholar
  57. Rooke, A. (2009). Queer in the field: On emotions, temporality, and performativity in ethnography. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 13, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160802695338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth, Y. (2014). Locating the “Scruff guy”: Theorizing body and spaces in gay geosocial media. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2113–2133. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org.Google Scholar
  59. Shade, L. R. (2013). Gender and digital policy: From global information infrastructure to internet governance. In C. Carter, L. Steiner, & L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media & gender (pp. 222–232). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Shontell, A. (2015, January 27). What it’s like to found a $750 million startup, go through a sexual-harassment lawsuit, and start all over by age 25. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com
  61. Stampler, L. (2014, February 06). Inside Tinder: Meet the guys who turned dating into an addiction. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com
  62. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sweatt Inc. (2017). Sweatt – A dating app for the fitness community. iTunes Preview. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
  64. Tepper, F. (2017, January 3). Here’s who fared best on dating apps in 2016. TechCrunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com
  65. Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. (2004). Looking for sexual compatibility: Experiences among Swedish men in visiting internet gay chat rooms. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3, 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100420205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tinder Blog. (2016, November 15). Introducing more genders on Tinder. Tinder Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.gotinder.com
  67. Tinder Inc. (2017). Tinder. iTunes Preview. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
  68. Turkle, S. (1996). Virtuality and its discontents searching for community in cyberspace. In J. Turow & A. L. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT press sourcebook on the internet and the family (pp. 385–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tyson, G., Perta, V. C., Haddadi, H., & Seto, M. C. (2016). A first look at user activity on Tinder. 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 461–466). San Francisco, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752275
  70. Valocchi, S. (2005). Not yet queer enough: The lessons of queer theory for the sociology of gender and sexuality. Gender and Society, 19, 750–770. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wakeford, N. (2000). Cyberqueer. In D. Bell & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader (pp. 403–415). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Walker, J. R. (2014). How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  73. Ward, J. (2017). What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1644–1659. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. ward, k. j. (1999). The cyber-ethnographic (re)construction of two feminist online communities. Sociological Research Online, 4. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/1/ward.html
  75. Whitley, R. (2017, January 5). What is the link between Tinder and mental health?. Huffpost: The Blog. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca
  76. Whitson, J. R. (2014). Foucault’s fitbit: Governance and gamification. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 339–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Woo, J. (2015). Grindr: Part of a complete breakfast. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 2, 61–72 Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/575376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc S. Cousineau
    • 1
  • Harrison Oakes
    • 2
  • Corey W. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Recreation & Leisure StudiesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations