Chapter published in:Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research: Theory, methods, and interpretation
Edited by Ignacio Guillén-Galve and Ana Bocanegra-Valle
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1] 2021
► pp. 61–82
Chapter 4Understanding academics online
Ethnographic approaches to the analysis of online academic discourse and practices
In the 21st century academic activity and communication are mediated by digital technologies, which enable scholars to engage in new social practices. Although ethnography is an appropriate approach to analyse these practices, the online environment, with its constraints and affordances, requires adjustments in pre-digital ethnography, regarding, among others, how the setting of research is defined, or how observation or interviews are conducted (Garcia, Standlee, Bechkoff, & Cui, 2009). This chapter provides a review of ethnographically-oriented research on academic communication in online settings and of the different ethnographic approaches that are being used to analyse scholars’ digital practices. By doing so, the chapter contributes to the overall aims of the book by offering useful insights to advance the methodological knowledge of researchers interested in (online) academic practices.
Keywords: digital ethnography, ethnographically-oriented research, academic discourse, digital communication, digital practices
- Theoretical framework
- What is digital ethnography?
- Adjustments of pre-digital ethnography to the online environment
- Methodology: Selection and analysis of ethnographically-oriented studies
- Online academic practices: Ethnographically-oriented studies
- Surveys and questionnaires
- Observation and document analysis
- Reflection on one’s own writing
- Conclusions and implications
Published online: 26 October 2021
(2008) Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Language@Internet, 5, article 9. Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2008/1610/androutsopoulos.pdf
Androutsopoulos, J., & Stæhr, A. C.
Bardakcı, S., Arslan, Ö., & Ünver, T. K.
Barton, D., & McCulloch, S.
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J.
Borgman, C. L.
Chikoore, L., Probets, S., Fry, J., & Creaser, C.
Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J.
Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S.
Ferris, S. P.
Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y.
Gillen, J., & Merchant, G.
Green, J., & Bloome, D.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A.
Hafner, C. A.
Hallett, R. E., & Barber, K.
Heap, T., & Minocha, S.
(2015) ‘Science bloggers’ self-perceived communication roles. JCOM, 14(4). Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1404_2015_A02.pdf
LaPoe, V. L., Olson, C. C., & Eckert, S.
Latzko-Toth, G., Bonneau, C., & Millette, M.
Lemon, N., & McPherson, M.
Luzón, M. J.
Lyman, P., & Wakeford, N.
Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C.
(2014) Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. JCOM, 13(03). Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from https://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1303_2014_A05.pdf.
Mkono, M., & Markwell, K.
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., & Holmes, K. L.
Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J.
Reid, G., & Anson, C. M.
Riesch, H., & Mendel, J.
Robinson, L., & Schulz, J.
Saunders, M. E., Duffy, M. A., Heard, S. B., Kosmala, M., Leather, S. R., McGlynn, T. P., Ollerton, J., & Parachnowitsch, A. L.
Scheliga, K., Friesike, S., Puschmann, C., & Fecher, B.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R.
Veletsianos, G., & Stewart, B.
Walter, S., Lörcher, I., & Brüggemann, M.