Online Methods and Analyzing Knowledge-Production

Location

New technologies have made it possible for multiple people located around the world to efficiently communicate with one another. One strength of doing research at online locales is the possibility of watching this articulation in action, especially in forums within which multiple people are encouraged to interact. In the past, this involved newsgroups. Currently, one can see similar interactions on social networking sites, such as Facebook groups, or on shared workspaces like Google Docs. For those of us who are interested in studying communication between members of the diaspora, social networking sites and discussion boards are ideal sites. While it is true that cultures are syncretic and that national boundaries do not necessarily reflect complete differences between locations, there are slightly different local, state, and national policies, practices, and laws that affect individuals differently between locations. Thus, in these sites, it is possible to witness the effects of these policies and/or histories on the diaspora’s discussion of culture, nation, history, community, and identity (Bernal, 2006; Ignacio, 2005; Mitra, 2006).

While online scholars have used various methods to study diaspora, I argue that if one is inclined to choose social networking sites (such as Facebook or Twitter) as their location, then one should consider doing a textual or discursive analysis for the following reasons: First, as other methodologists have noted, if one wishes to generalize their research to all members of the diaspora, these sites may not be the best places to conduct online surveys or even troll for structured interviews, as researchers may face sampling issues (Battles, 2010; Beddows, 2008). As in research offline, scholars conducting research must be careful about sampling bias and, ideally, must try to generate a random sample. But, given that, even in 2011, there are still access issues and differences in technological skills, it is likely that diasporic members who are online—much more so, who voluntarily join discussion groups on social networking sites like Facebook—most likely are not “representative” of the whole group. Textual and/or discursive analyses of postings in these online locales, however, can give us all a glimpse of knowledge formation in these spaces (Denzin, 1999; Ignacio, 2006).

In these forums, conversation analysis, especially via the method of instances (Denzin, 1999; Psthas, 1995), allows researchers to examine the struggles over identity, meanings, and even the self. Briefly, the method of instances requires the researcher to analyze how people understand and respond to each utterance within the whole context (i.e., the conversation or thread) in which the utterances are spoken (Denzin, 1999; Ignacio, 2005; Psthas, 1995). Using this method, it is possible to witness and analyze the impact of the politics of identity on individual subjects. This method and forum offers the possibility for researchers to analyze the impact of social, political, economic, and cultural issues on identity and community formation as well as both voice and choice. In addition, it offers the possibility of witnessing the destabilization and rearticulation of theories and concepts well established within our fields.

For example, in my work, I was able to carefully analyze multiple discussions about language, cultural values, what constitutes “real” Filipinas, the politics and social consequences of interethnic, interracial, and/or international relationships, and even jokes that severely destabilized notions of culture, gender, nation, race, and authenticity in general, while simultaneously exposing firmly rooted common struggles—postcolonialism, nationalism, racism, sexism, Orientalism, Eurocentrism, and economic and military domination and dependence (Ignacio, 2005). Thus, for those interested in discursive analysis, social networking sites could be ideal sites.

Limitations—location and contextual concerns

While there are many benefits and unique opportunities to conducting online research, there are many limitations that the researcher must consider. As we have seen, immigration specialists have recently chosen to gather much information via new technology—whether collecting online surveys, conducting email interviews, teleconferencing, entering into chat rooms, and so on. However, doing Internet research is not as simple as it may appear, nor is it the most desirable method depending on the questions one wishes to be answered, and (perhaps, more importantly) whether the researcher will sacrifice learning much more about one’s topic if it is conducted offline. Just as there are limitations to each method collected in geographically bounded locales, so, too, are there limitations to data collected online.

As stated earlier, many researchers have addressed the transference of traditional methods (such as structured interviews, surveys, and focus groups) online (Battles, 2010; Beddows, 2008). But, as we have seen, the locations of the scholar and those the scholar wishes to study, as well as the interactions between the two, in and of itself, become a part of the empirical material of the study. Furthermore, scholarship on migration (as in other areas) needs to continue to be multifaceted because it is important to continually assess the political and economic reasons why people choose to emigrate. This kind of research has helped illuminate, better, the simultaneous effects of various transnational institutional policies or practices (e.g., structural adjustment policies, integrated financial markets, etc.) on individuals. Several studies on diasporas and/or transnationalism, for example, focus on the processes of emigration. For example, Gilbert Gonzalez (2007), Robyn Rodriguez (2010), and Anna Guevarra (2010) have examined the actions of state officials and emigrants, from Mexico and the Philippines.

Because Rodriguez and Guevarra wished to study these various actors at the point of emigration, they necessarily had to travel to the point of emigration (in this case, the Philippines) so they could see policies and practices “in action.” The result is a very rich description of the intended and actual practices and policies of cultivating “export labor” and the effects of these policies on both the images of emigrants/immigrants (in both the home and host countries) as well as the identities and self-assessment of the emigrants themselves (Guevarra, 2010; Rodriguez, 2010).

With respect to diasporas, for example, much of the research necessarily has to examine the effects of sociopolitical and economic policies on individuals within specific, localized communities. For example, in order to address the “bind of agency” that affects the choices of migrants, Rhacel Parreñas interviewed Filipina domestic workers in two, specific, locations—Rome, Italy and Los Angeles, California. In so doing, she was able to explain the differential effects of neoliberal economic policies, not only on national policies involving the importation of labor but also on how those global and intermediate policies affect the daily lives and choices of immigrants.

In all of these studies, it is not only the particular questions the scholars are asking but also the importance of location that strengthens their research. Although, technically, each of these scholars could have gotten some of their information via online methods, they had all indicated how face-to-face interactions and the location itself had helped them form (often, at the spur of the moment) questions/statements of where to go next. This is not to say that research on emigration or about immigrants should never be conducted using online methods. As we have seen, many scholars have already conducted informative research online. However, as in all projects that employ the use of textual analysis, online researchers—particularly those who are conducting structured interviews—cannot take note of how the words, the tone, and the overall interaction guided the research. Listening to the tone of one’s voice, seeing someone’s expressions—not only as they speak but also as they react to others (even if it is just the interviewer) can lead the interviewer toward a more comprehensive understanding of how political economies, state policies, and cultural politics affect persons. Similarly, the interviewer’s responses may, also, be affected by this interaction.

That is not to say that this cannot happen when researchers employ online methods, of course. Online scholars are also deeply affected by location and the effects of the context that location has on the study. The only point I am making is that the context from offline to online interviews, at least, are necessarily different, and contexts always impact research. So, the questions that all scholars should ask are “Why should I use this (these) particular methods? Is this method the most desirable method to answer my questions?” And, given that research often leads scholars to new directions, the scholar should ask if he or she is open to either employing new methods or being innovative in doing research such that his or her questions can best be answered.

Perhaps, there also may be the assumption that interviewer bias may be “lessened” in some way because bodies are not interacting. Thus, both interviewers and interviewees will not, presumably, attempt to read each other’s body language before either answering a question or formulating a follow-up question. In addition, as many who have critiqued face-to-face interviews for some time have noted, some may still assume that answers to written surveys might eliminate “interviewer bias”—the desire of the interviewee to answer the question in such a way that the interviewer wants the question answered. Thus, researchers may assume, then, that the responses to a particular set of questions asked online are “pure,” in that the respondents are (supposedly) not reacting to the interviewer him- or herself. And, yet, regardless of whether the material is being collected online or in person, there still exists a researcher/subject relationship. In addition, conversation analysts have shown that textual responses are, themselves, also subject to an additional layer of reading before people respond (Denzin, 1999; Ignacio, 2006; Psthas, 1995). Therefore, scholars should be aware of the impacts of this relationship on their research, no matter what method they use.

Others are under the impression that collecting online data (particularly textual data) is less time-consuming because it cuts down on transcribing. No matter the method chosen, if it predominantly involves the analysis of text, particularly if it is collected in an open, online community forum, it entails carefully preserving the contexts within which the material was collected (see Ignacio 2005, chap. 1). Textual, conversation analysis must be treated carefully because the context is created and circumscribed by various utterances. Furthermore, the timing of the utterances is of utmost importance in this medium.

Weighing benefits and costs: choosing appropriate online methods

As stated earlier, when studying the experiences of migrants, immigrants, transmigrants, and diasporic communities, it may be tempting to use online methods because these communities frequently use technological advances to communicate with and support one another. It is true that technological advances, most definitely, have made it easier for both organizations and individuals around the world to transfer funds, transport goods, and communicate. However, no matter what topic we choose to research, methodologists, quantitative and qualitative, always remind us that the most important thing researchers must do is choose the method that will best answer the questions we are asking such that we can best contribute our understandings about that particular area of research.

For example, in the mid-1990s, when thinking through how to conduct research for what later would become my book, Building Diaspora (2005), I had to answer three main questions that all researchers have to answer: (a) What is my thesis question? (b) What is/are the best method(s) to use to collect the necessary empirical material for my research; and (c) (if applicable) Where should I conduct this research? For this research, I was interested in observing the process of community and ethnic identity formation of diasporic Filipinos. Because a student of mine alerted me to the fact that diasporic Filipinos were contributing to this “knowledge” formation on a newsgroup on the Internet, I wanted to see if that would be the best site for my study.

After consulting with my advisors and colleagues, it became clear that, given that I was most curious about the process of identity and community formation and how participants’ local categorizations as well as state and personal histories would affect these discussions, I needed to choose that particular newsgroup as my location. After having chosen my location, I went through the process of interrogating my own theoretical perspective(s). My question marked me as a social constructionist, as I (obviously) was inclined to see how identities are created, rather than accepting the parameters of identity without question.

After determining my research question, location, and theoretical perspective, I then needed to carefully think through the method I would employ. Because I was interested in studying the process of Filipino diasporic communication and identity formation, I chose to conduct a “nethnography,” but with a twist. I carefully explained that I was carrying out a limited participant observation and was conducting conversational analysis, particularly the “method of instances” on the empirical material. I chose to conduct a limited participant observation because I did not want to “taint” the conversations about community and identity by guiding the conversations toward a conversation that the respondents may not have intended to participate. (Thus I limited my responses in the newsgroup.) In addition, I needed to make clear that I needed to conduct a conversational analysis because I was concerned more with the process of knowledge-production, and—due to both the physical locations of the persons involved in the discussion as well as the medium within which they were communicating (i.e., the newsgroup)—preserving the context of the conversation and of each utterance so as to best study the complexities of identity formation. However, since it was a relatively new medium and concept, I simultaneously had to carefully chart out my chosen research method with my advisors and join other scholars in defending the notion that a cybercommunity was, indeed, a community (i.e., see, for example, Jones, 1998).

Thankfully, at the time, I had a cadre of colleagues with whom I could discuss how this new medium and space complicates old and introduces new methodological concerns. As indicated earlier, the fruit of these discussions eventually led to the publication of several, different volumes solely focused on doing Internet research (see, for example, Fielding, Lee, & Blank, 2008; Jones, 1999; Markham & Baym, 2008; Silver & Massanari, 2006). Even the method that I had to chart out with my advisors (i.e., “the method of instances” as described above) in analyzing online conversations was finally, formally, and succinctly written about within an Internet textbook (Denzin, 1999).

With regard to my chosen method, in addition to explaining the parameters of the method, I also maintained (and still maintain) that even as Internet usage continues to grow, when it comes to analyzing texts within any community board—archived newsgroups, discussion groups in social networking sites like Facebook, or MySpace, the very act of analyzing those discussions does not allow one to generalize the comments to the entire diaspora. For in order to claim generalization toward all members—just as it is offline—one must use adequate sampling methods. Like the newsgroups of the olden days of the Internet, membership within most online groups, just as Facebook discussion groups is voluntary. Therefore, this method cannot be used if one is concerned with the positivist or postpositivist “requirements” that would allow generalization across members of a larger community whose members are both online and offline. However, this is an exceptional method for those who are concerned with the production of knowledge and meaning. But, as good as this method can be for social constructionists, there are some unique issues that scholars should be aware of, so that they can carefully hone their research questions and choose the field.

Conversation analysis

As I have mentioned before, some may be under the impression that collecting online data (particularly textual data) is less time-consuming because it cuts down on transcribing. But, textual, conversation analysis must be treated carefully because the context is created and circumscribed strictly by various utterances. No matter, the method chosen, if it involves predominantly the analysis of text, particularly if it is collected in an open, online community forum, the scholar must carefully preserve the contexts within which the material was collected (see Ignacio, 2005, chap. 1).

In particular, if one decides to analyze online conversations for the purpose of analyzing the development of discourses, it is very important to preserve and describe as best as one can the context within which utterances are made. While it is true that, in nonvirtual settings, textual and discourse analysts must take into account both intertextuality and culture, online communities have specific contexts that are, often, created and circumscribed by the participants themselves, so online scholarship entails this additional layer of observations (Voithofer, 2006; Watson et al, 2006). The most obvious difference between online communities and nonvirtual communities is that, while they are interactive mediums, the interaction is largely through written words (Watson et al., 2006). Thus, as stated above, while it is an incredible space for social constructionists who are interested in studying knowledge-production through the use of conversational analysis, those who conduct structured interviews online would obtain good, written answers, but would forsake the additional, unstated and, often, serendipitous information that often emerges from face-to-face interviews.

Furthermore, the timing of the utterances is of utmost importance in this medium. If the data is being collected in real time (i.e., synchronous), the scholar must pay close attention to the timing of utterances, much like musicians are hyperaware of the timing and tone of other musicians, so as to be able to more accurately express the “feel” of the context. If the data is not collected in real time (i.e., asynchronous, such as looking at the threads of conversation in archived groups, social networking sites, etc.), then the researcher should pay close attention, at the very least, to the time-stamps of the conversations.

In online communities, context is not only tied to the specific listserve, medium, and/or social networking site (such as Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace), it is also tied to time and, often, a knowledge of a nonvirtual context to which the participant is responding. Online communities do not merely reflect nonvirtual communities. They are, instead, “perpendicular communities” that are mutually constitutive (Ignacio, 2005). Thus, as in all ethnographies, scholars continue to benefit greatly from being as diligent as possible in paying careful attention to the issues in the “outside” world to which the participants respond in order to best analyze the discourse within the online community. In many cases, scholars have also had the opportunity to analyze how the “outside” world has been greatly affected by online discourses or images (see, for example, Koh, 2008).

Depending on the online community, the researcher has to plan carefully his or her data collection techniques as the timing of the responses is often crucial to understanding and analyzing the utterances. A recent, popular example that may illustrate the importance of preserving time and understanding the influence of “outside” contexts in the collection and analysis of data is the recent Twitter posts of @mayoremanuel.

To fully comprehend, appreciate, and (if need be) analyze the Twitter posts of this particular user, one needed to know the following things: (a) the general perception that former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frequently used expletives, particularly the so-called “F-bomb”; (b) that, at the time, this Twitter user began to post as @mayoremanuel, rumors that the “real” Rahm Emanuel was going to resign from his job as President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff in order to run as a Democratic candidate in the mayoral race of Chicago, Illinois; (c) the names and appearances of various persons in the Obama White House (such as David Axelrod) who’d worked with both President Obama and Mr. Emanuel over the course of a few years; (d) Beltway politics and political figures during the time period within which this poster tweeted; (e) the importance of various Chicago landmarks and figures—especially the Daley family; (f) specific events that occurred at the time of various postings (i.e., events ranging from NFL playoff games, especially those that involved the Chicago Bears and the mayoral race); and (g) the actual spacing between each tweet. If one does not take any of these (and, possibly other contextual references) into account prior to analysis, it will most likely lead (at best) to an incomplete understanding of the “miniconversations” within this account.

As one can imagine, a comprehensive conversational analysis on Twitter becomes even more difficult if one is following a number of users who are responding to the same event. Not only would one have to learn the correct hashtags (i.e, a nonhierarchical keyword, term, or phrase assigned to a piece of information) that users are writing to communicate with one another, but the posts often come in breakneck speed. As an example of how difficult this chosen method could be (particularly if research is conducted on Twitter) for those who are interested in studying conversations between people in the diaspora, one could point to one recent event that was initially “reported” on Twitter, then generated multiple responses:

On April 17, 2011, for example, a very young Filipino actor by the name of A. J. Perez died in a horrific car accident. The news of his death was first posted by a fellow Filipino actor named Ogie Diaz (@OgieDiaz) via Twitter. Diasporic Filipinos who may have been familiar with either Ogie Diaz or A. J. Perez reacted to the news quickly, furiously retweeting condolences from various celebrities and offering their deepest condolences so frequently that they became “top tweets” of the day.

At first glance, this may appear to just be a function of the medium; this is, after all, what Twitter users share—a steady stream of status updates, theirs or others. But, an ethnographer interested in observing the process of community, identity, or even discourse formation on Twitter, as in the @mayoremanuel example above, has to always take into account the specific context of the medium, as well as the “non-Twitter” context, to be able to best analyze the phenomenon.

For example, an ethnographer would first have to take into account at least the following before undertaking an analysis of these tweets:

First, with the click of one button (i.e., the retweet button), Twitter allows users to broadcast someone else’s posted message (aka, tweet) to all the people on his or her network. Since many television personalities and other celebrities make their Twitter pages available to all and also allow all Twitter users to sign up for their page as Twitter “followers,” it is very easy for one’s status update to spread like wildfire on Twitter.

Second, many diasporic Filipinos rely not only on the Internet but also satellite television and ethnic newspapers to either stay in touch with or learn about their culture (Bonus, 2000; Vergara, 2009). One very influential is owned by ABS-CBN Corporation. The Philippines’ largest media conglomerate, ABS-CBN channels are broadcast widely in the Philippines and worldwide via satellite television. With respect to the above scenario, A. J. Perez was an ABS-CBN “homegrown talent,” and Ogie Perez is also under contract with the company. Both (as is the case with all ABS-CBN stars) are heavily promoted by ABS-CBN, appearing not only in the shows within which they star (in this case, Sabel and Mutya) but also in variety shows (ASAP Live), entertainment news shows (E-live), or weekly dramas (Maalaala Mo Kaya). Therefore, diasporic Filipinos who are avid Twitter users and who subscribe to the Filipino channel, watch their shows online, read about their stars in various local ethnic newspapers, and/or have seen their films would, more likely than not, have seen the news fairly quickly.

To complicate matters, the Filipino diaspora lives and works in more than 200 countries. Given that the diaspora operates in different time zones, the tweets and retweets also occurred around the clock.

Furthermore, given the marriage between Twitter, other social networking sites (like Facebook), ABS-CBN, and other channels, these tweets appeared on all mediums, at all hours of the day, simultaneously reflecting, creating, and changing both news and context. These are perpendicular worlds.

Researchers interested in approaching this event from a conversation analysis standpoint, then, would have a very challenging task, to say the least. As stated earlier, to do a very thorough conversation analysis, the scholar would have to not only gather the data but also be very sensitive to the timing of these posts, the influence of outside sources on the contexts, as well as the ways these posts changed the context. It was overwhelming to have witnessed it in action. Studying the whole phenomenon, using the method of instances, while not impossible, would be a gargantuan task.