Digital Ethnography: Artists Speak from Virtual Ability Island in Second Life



Second Life (SL) is “a popular multi-user environment where everything is built by avatar-residents, except the basic land” (Robbins & Bell, 2008). Users transform their avatars and creations with SL scripting language and retain copyrights. Although known for its social function, for example, meeting people, virtual parties, and interesting places to visit, these events are also inherently educational and aesthetic. Ondrejka (2008) describes learning in SL as situated, the social interaction providing built-in incentives to apprentice more experienced residents in active, “Vygotsian” collaboration. Over 300 universities worldwide have a home in SL (Michels, 2008). In November 2010, SL claimed to have 21.3 million accounts registered (Second Life, 2011, April). In 2010, approximately 700,000 people used the virtual world for at least an hour a month, the means that Linden Labs uses to measure activity level (Sass, 2010). Because of this unique feature of the platform, SL appeals to artists of all sorts to build and create “in world” (in SL). The result is a rich and varied world, created by its users, for its users.


Virtual World Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Second Life Deaf Community Disability Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, S. S., Stokrocki, M., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & DiGangi, S. A. (2010). The development of a personal learning environment using Second Life. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(3), 36–54.Google Scholar
  2. Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24, 233–245. Retrieved May 14, 2011 from Scholar
  3. Carbaugh, D., & Buzzanell, P. (Eds.). (2010). Distinctive qualities in communication research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, D. (2010). Constructingdisability/Deaf in SL. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from Scholar
  5. Chorost, M. (2005). Rebuilt: How becoming part computer made me more human. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness and the body. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Derby, J. (2011). Disability studies and art education. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research, 52(2), 94–111.Google Scholar
  8. Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal components of a digital culture. The Information Society, 22(2), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumoulin, H. (2005). Zen Buddhism: A history, Vol. 2 Japan (Trans. J. Heisig & P. Knitter). Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Digital Media and Learning Initiative. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from Scholar
  13. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane, H. (1999). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  15. Liao L. C. (2010). Avatar as pedagogy: Critical strategies for visual culture in the virtual environment. In R. W. Sweeny (Ed.), Interactions/intersections: Art education in a digital visual culture (pp. 182–196). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.Google Scholar
  16. Lu, L. (2010). Demystifying three-dimensional virtual worlds for art education. International Society for Education Through Art, 3(3), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meadows, M. S. (2008). I, avatar: The culture and consequences of having a second life. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.Google Scholar
  18. Michels, P (2008). Universities use Second Life to teach complex concepts. Government technology. Retrieved May 14, 2011 from Scholar
  19. Miller, C. H. (2004). Digital storytelling: A creator’s guide to interactive entertainment. Boston: Elsevier, Focal Press.Google Scholar
  20. Naumburg, M. (1955). Art as symbolic speech. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 13(4), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ondrejka, C. (2008). Education unleashed: Participatory culture, education, and innovation in second life. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Robbins, S. & Bell, M. (2008). Second Life for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Sass, E. (2010, July 29). Second life chugs along. The Social Graf: Connecting through the Chaos. Retrieved May 14, 2011 from Scholar
  24. Schweitzer, A. (1998). Out of my life and thought. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Second Life. (2011, April). Wikipedia. Retrieved May 2, 2011 from
  26. Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In S. D. La Pierre, & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education (pp. 33–56). Reston, VA: NAEA.Google Scholar
  27. Stokrocki, M. (2010, May). Art & spirituality on Second Life: A participant observation and digital phenomenological quest. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 182–197. Retrieved PDF, June 24, 2010 from Scroll through to find this article with pictures.Google Scholar
  28. Stokrocki, M. (in press). Digital ethnography: Art education qualitative research in virtual worlds. In K. Miraglia & C. Smilan (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research. Reston, VA: NAEAGoogle Scholar
  29. Stokrocki, M. & Andrews, S. (2010). Empowering the disenfranchised through explorations in Second Life. In R. W. Sweeny (Ed.), Digital visual culture: Intersections and interactions in 21st century art education (pp. 197–209). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.Google Scholar
  30. Swan, J. (2002). Disabilities, bodies, voices. In S. L. Synder, B. Brueggemann, & R. Garland-Thomas (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 283–295). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  31. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  32. Wesch, M. (2007). Digital ethnography class blog. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from Scholar
  33. Wexler, A. (2011). The siege of the cultural city is underway: Children with developmental disabilities make art. Studies in Art Education, 53(1), 53–70.Google Scholar
  34. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Alice Wexler 2012

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations