Cover not available
Part of
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 4
Understanding academics online

Ethnographic approaches to the analysis of online academic discourse and practices

| University of Zaragoza
| University of Zaragoza
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
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 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
    • Interviews
    • Observation and document analysis
    • Reflection on one’s own writing
  • Conclusions and implications
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.1.04alb
References (65)
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Language@Internet, 5, article 9. Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from [URL]
Androutsopoulos, J., & Stæhr, A. C. (2018). Moving methods online: Researching digital language practices. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp. 118–132). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardakcı, S., Arslan, Ö., & Ünver, T. K. (2017). How scholars use academic social networking services. Information Development, 34(4), 334–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, D., & McCulloch, S. (2018). Negotiating tensions around new forms of academic writing. Discourse, Context & Media, 24, 8–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, R. (2013). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2017). Network ethnography: A mixed-method approach for the study of practices in interorganizational settings. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure and the internet. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
boyd, d. (2008). Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of California-Berkeley. DOI logo
(2014). It’s complicated. The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bukvova, H. (2011). Scientists online: A framework for the analysis of internet profiles. First Monday, 16(10). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chikoore, L., Probets, S., Fry, J., & Creaser, C. (2016). How are UK academics engaging the public with their research? A cross-disciplinary perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 145–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PLoS ONE, 11(10). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colson, V. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12(7), 889–902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, C. (2015). Outcasts on the inside: Academics reinventing themselves online. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(2), 194–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS, 3, 682–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers: Views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, L. (2010). Authenticity online: Using webnography to address phenomenological concerns. In A. Mousoutzanis & D. Riha. (Eds.), New media and the politics of online communities (pp. 11–17). Inter-Disciplinary Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, S. P. (2011). Millenials, social networking and social responsibility. In Management Association, Information Resources (Ed.), Virtual communities: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (pp. 277–291). IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(1), 52–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gillen, J., & Merchant, G. (2013). Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice. Language Sciences, 35, 47–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. Heath, & D. Lapp. (Eds.), A Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 181–202). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. The Internet and Higher Education, 28(6), 43–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hafner, C. A. (2018). Genre innovation and multimodal expression in scholarly communication: Video methods articles in experimental biology. Ibérica, 36, 15–41.Google Scholar
Hallett, R. E., & Barber, K. (2014). Ethnographic research in a cyber era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(3), 306–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heap, T., & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 176–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarreau, P. (2015). ‘Science bloggers’ self-perceived communication roles. JCOM, 14(4). Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from [URL]
Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage.Google Scholar
LaPoe, V. L., Olson, C. C., & Eckert, S. (2017). “Linkedin is my office, Facebook my living room, Twitter the neighbourhood bar”: Media scholars liminal use of social media for peer and public communication. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 41(3), 185–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latzko-Toth, G., Bonneau, C., & Millette, M. (2017). Small data, thick data: Thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In A. Quan-Haase, & L. Sloan. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media research methods (pp. 199–214). Sage.Google Scholar
Lemon, N., & McPherson, M. (2017). Intersections online: Academics who tweet. In D. Lupton, I. Mewburn, & P. Thomson. (Eds.), The digital academic: Critical perspectives on digital technologies in higher education (pp. 78–90). Routledge.Google Scholar
Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling better connected’: Academics’ use of social media. News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2019). “Meet our group!” Addressing multiple audiences on the websites of Spanish research groups. IJES: International Journal of English Studies, 19(2), 37–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyman, P., & Wakeford, N. (1999). Introduction: Going into the (virtual) field. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 359–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 [URL]. DOI logo
McGrath, L. (2016). Open-access writing: An investigation into the online drafting and revision of a research article in pure mathematics. English for Specific Purposes, 43, 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mkono, M., & Markwell, K. (2014). The application of ethnography in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 289–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., & Holmes, K. L. (2018). Academic information on Twitter: A user survey. PLoS ONE, 13(5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pink, S., Horst, H. A., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage.Google Scholar
Reid, G., & Anson, C. M. (2019). Public- and expert-facing communication: A case study of polycontextuality and context collapse in Internet-mediated citizen science. In M. J. Luzón, & C. Pérez-Llantada. (Eds.), Science communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres (pp. 219–238). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riesch, H., & Mendel, J. (2014). Science blogging: Networks, boundaries and limitations. Science as Culture, 23(1), 51–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riva, G. (2002). The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: The present and future of technology-based interactions. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5(6), 581–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, L., & Schulz, J. (2009). New avenues for sociological inquiry. Sociology – The Journal of The British Sociological Association, 43, 685–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhleder, K. (2000). The virtual ethnographer: Fieldwork in distributed electronic environments. Field Methods, 12(1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saunders, M. E., Duffy, M. A., Heard, S. B., Kosmala, M., Leather, S. R., McGlynn, T. P., Ollerton, J., & Parachnowitsch, A. L. (2017). Bringing ecology blogging into the scientific fold: Measuring reach and impact of science community blogs. Royal Society Open Science, 4(10). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, E. (2014). Scholarship in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 12–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheliga, K., Friesike, S., Puschmann, C., & Fecher, B. (2018). Setting up crowd science projects. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 515–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. (2015). “Wow, I didn’t know that before; thank you”: How scientists use Twitter for public engagement. Journal of Promotional Communications, 3(3), 320–339.Google Scholar
Stewart, B. (2015). In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 318–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied Social Theory, 1(1), 61–86.Google Scholar
(2016b). Twitter as method: Using twitter as a tool to conduct research. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social media research methods (pp. 251–265). Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sveningsson, M. (2004). Ethics in Internet ethnography. In E. A. Buchanan. (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics (pp. 45–61). Information Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorsen, E. (2013). Blogging on the ice: Connecting audiences with climate-change sciences. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(1), 87–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varis, P. (2016). Digital ethnography. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spiloti. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 55–68). Routledge.Google Scholar
Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 639–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veletsianos, G., & Stewart, B. (2016). Discreet openness: Scholars’ selective and intentional self-disclosures online. Social Media + Society, 2(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walter, S., Lörcher, I., & Brüggemann, M. (2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 696–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, G. (2003). The Internet and the rise of a transnational Chinese cultural sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 25(4), 469–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Y., & Purdam, K. (2017). Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom. First Monday, 22(11). DOI logoGoogle Scholar