An Enhanced Virtual Ethnography: The Role Of Critical Theory

Stream 5: Exploring the Meaning of ‘Critique’ in Electronically-Mediated Work

Neil Hair

Moira Clark

Cranfield School of Management Cranfield University

Bedfordshire England

MK43 0AL neilhair@hotmail.com T +44 (0)1234 751122 F +44 (0)1234 751806

Abstract: This paper reports on the process of conducting research in Virtual Communities synthesizing aspects of Critical Theory within the broader methodological framework of Ethnography. This specific methodology was created for the exploration of digital relational processes exhibited in consumer-to-consumer electronic trading communities. The aim of this research is to assist these electronic communities in developing their computer-mediated environment so as to engender greater levels of participation, trust and commitment. This research is currently ongoing and this paper refers to the research strategy adopted. Beginning with a review of traditional Ethnographic ontological and epistemological perspectives, the authors identify a number of shortcomings in the original means through which scholars have claimed ‘criticality’ in their work. A review of common approaches however reveals; a lack of purpose as it relates to agency, particularly in the context of utility in management research; a failure to address the politics of representation or examine the role of the researcher and their report on its subjects; and an often limited debate on the ethical practices adopted to protect those cultures studied. Recently it is acknowledged that a crisis of representation in the Ethnographic community has led to an evolvement of research agendas to take into account some of these criticisms. A gradual movement from descriptions of consensual cultures to those reporting tensions, fragmentation and processes of conflict suppression are becoming increasingly common place. To more explicitly address the issues of purposeful research within the managerial domain that goes beyond description, a number of researchers have gone further still. Whilst sharing conventional methods, Critical Ethnographers adopt explicit ontological and epistemological choices; namely emancipation with a participatory action oriented intent. The benefits of this approach includes; a richer understanding of culture, challenges to the common assumptions held in the ordinary ways of perceiving culture in computer-mediated environments; being appropriately questioning of any knowledge claims relating to ‘truth’; recognizing researcher bias and subjectivity; and specifically addressing the ethical concerns particularly as they relate to the protection and advancement of those communities and cultures studied. Whilst Virtual Ethnographers reveal a more reflective practice, it is argued that a fusion of Critical practices, advances the utility of research in computer-mediated environments. The paper closes by presenting an enhanced methodology for a Virtual Ethnography, cognizant of a critical ontology and representative of a corresponding epistemology which builds on current practice.

Introduction Reviewing published work on ethnography reveals an often heated debate at the starting point of definition. The more established view is one linked to anthropology, a singular method of observing. Others refer to it as a set of methods, a research strategy, a paradigm, a frame of mind, whilst a number define ethnography by its means of writing. Hammersley & Atkinson (1995) put it concisely when they note, "ethnography is not clearly defined in common usage.. there is some disagreement about what count and do not count as examples of it," (from Bate, 1990 p1). Bate argues, "In its most characteristic form it involves the ethnographer participating as observer, overtly or covertly in people's daily lives for an extended period of time watching what happens." More recently, changes within the field of ethnographic practices are becoming apparent, Mariampolski (1999) puts it succinctly, "ethnography cannot reasonably be defined as just another single method or technique," rather a research discipline based upon culture as an organizing concept and a mix of both observational and interviewing techniques to record behavioral dynamics. As such ethnography seems well placed to help in the exploration of digital relationships. Recent research in computer-mediated communication and consumer behavior areas have helped debate a definition of ethnography on the Internet (or 'netnography' as Kozinet, 2002 terms). On its chief purpose Hine (2000, p34) argues, "that virtual ethnography aspires to give a distinctive understanding of the significance and implications of the Internet," a form of sociocultural anthropology which should, when rigorously applied, help determine the dynamics of a successful online relationship and help theoretical understanding. Arguing that ethnography on the Internet is a new qualitative research methodology Kozinet (2002) points towards adaptation of traditional features of ethnography to study the cultures and practices as they emerge through text based computer-mediated communications. The process of ethnography differs widely between research projects. A lack of consensus exacerbates this problem as well as a failure on the part of ethnographers to adequately define the underlying process (see for instance Hine, 2000 which refuses to identify the specific stages, offering instead insights and otherwise interesting anecdotes). Encouragingly, a number have attempted some formal definition of procedure (see for instance the work of Paccagnella 1997, Hurley 1998, Mann and Stewart 2000, Nocera 2002, Kozinets 2002). Starting with the shared viewpoint of Williams (1998) that, "new media research should consider alternative multiple methods and attempt a triangulation of methods," and guided by a view of ethnography being a strategy consistent of many possible methods, the following consensus of approach becomes apparent. Firstly, that studies should center on text-based communications as a means of focusing the study (adopted by the vast majority of modern ethnographic studies online, Kozinets 2002). Secondly, on the issue of process, traditional methods have focused on the taking of detailed field notes by the author as participant observer. This has then been followed by a review of accuracy; an identification of emerging patterns; review of extant literature on the area; the subsequent development of propositions; and finally the use of literature to develop theoretical standpoints (Hurley 1998).

Kozinets (2002) recognises, as do many of the Internet ethnographers (Nocera 2002, Reid 1995, Paccagnella 1997) that traditional methods need to be refashioned to suit the particular needs and constraints of the specific field of scholarship, research question, and research site (in the case of this research, as with his, the virtual or computer-mediated environment. In regard to the research site he argues CMC suitability should be related to; a focused and research relevant location (in the case of this research the web boards of electronic communities); have a high traffic of postings or other communicative activity; large numbers of discreet message postings; more detailed descriptively rich data and more between member interactions (customer-to-customer interaction that reflect relational phenomena in computer-mediated environments). In these measures it is proposed that Internet ethnography adapts itself to the virtual environment it seeks to interpret. Means of judging research worth Much has been done in recent years to try to improve rigor and reflection in ethnographic work. A review of qualitative literature and particularly those relating to ethnographic practices reveals growing disquiet with the use of what Janesick calls, "the Trinity" of Positivistic enquiry (1998, p. 50). Positivist bases for judging research quality are based predominantly on issues related to an objective 'truth' and its verification (Denzin 1997). Akin to these are issues surrounding validity and reliability. Ethnographers have been criticised by Positivists for producing fictional, non objective accounts which are neither valid nor reliable and in no way 'scientific'. Ethnographers themselves admit that no two ethnographies are the same which will naturally hinder replicability. This has led to the renunciation of these criteria for judging qualitative research, particularly where anti-positivist paradigms have been applied. An alternative range of criteria is apparent (Denzin 1997, Althcide and Johnson 1994, Denzin and Lincoln 1998). Woolcot (1990) and a host of ethnographic researchers including Akinson and Hammersley (1998), Nocera (2000), Kozinets (2001) to name a few, argue new means of judging ethnographic work is required. Consensus appears to favour the criteria of; credibility (over validity), transferability (over generalizability), dependability (over reliability) and a fourth particularly related to knowledge claims in qua litative work - confirmability. 1. Credibility and dependability as opposed to validity and reliability Ethnographers question whether credible accounts of the phenomena have been produced. This can be greater assured through the detailing of the ethnographic 'process' and may benefit from additional hermenutic aspects of returning accounts to the community for comment. Specifying analytical techniques used in ethnographic research will also lend to the development of credible theory. Ethnographers should question whether their accounts are sufficiently representative of the reality of the communities studied as they elude to shared notions of truth. Researchers should also call into question relexivity by asking themselves whether shared experience is sufficiently reflected in subsequent development of theory and resultant hypotheses / propositions.

2. Transferability as opposed to generalizability. Some qualitative researchers refer to 'naturalistic generalization - the ability of the researcher to produce sufficient detail to allow the reader to intuit whether a case is similar enough to warrant generalization (Sadish 1995, Stake and Trumbull 1982). Frustrations of practitioners of ethnographic accounts are apparent in the commercial world. The 'so what' factor of ethnographic accounts leave management searching for more 'scientifically rigorous' and 'implementable' research which often results from research that is more nomothetic in nature. Other means of judging research quality in ethnographic work include context embeddedness, authenticity, narrative truth, and emotional verisimilitude amongst others. Researchers are also notoriously poor at addressing issues of researcher bias in their accounts which clouds issues of research worth. Common issues involve drawing inadequate conclusions that aren't reflective of data. For example, being overly influenced by vividness or key respondents, dropping disconfirming evidence, poorly processing information, or failing to acknowledge the researcher's own interests in the research study. Attempts have been made to address these issues through the clear identification of analytical processes, coding procedures, and in some cases employing Hermeneutics to ensure respondents share constructions of the researcher's view of reality. Other attempts employ methodological triangulation. Those aspects relevant to the ethnographer include data triangulation (Denzin 1978) through; multiple sources, multiple investigators (where feasible through the process of multiple researchers and in the case of doctoral researcher, student/supervisor relations, as well as through participants of the research themselves), multiple theory (drawing from numerous disciplines and theoretical perspectives), and through multiplicity of data collection methods (such as depth interview, Delphi, construct elicitation techniques as well as the ethnographic 'account'). Others still have attempted to make researcher bias transparent through the process of authoethnography (sometimes referred to as autobiography, Easterby-Smith 2002, as well as through feminist approaches, Reinharz 1992, Gluck and Patai 1991). Further attempts have also been made in developing a suitable trail of evidence from the research process (documented within computer-software processing packages such as Ethnograph, Nvivo or Nud1st) helping to demonstrate the role of the researcher in reaching conclusions. Having reviewed the ways in which conventional ethnographers have claimed ‘criticality’ in their work the question of wha t else can be done to increase rigor remains. Critical ethnographers claim to have the answer.

What does it mean to be ‘Critical’? According to Brookfield (1987) being Critical means; 1. Identifying and challenging assumptions behind ordinary ways of perceiving, conceiving and acting. 2. Recognizing the influence of history, culture and social positioning on beliefs and action. 3. Imagining and exploring extraordinary alternatives, ones that may disrupt routines and the established order. 4. Being appropriately skeptical about any knowledge or solution that claims to be the only truth or alternative. In other words being 'critical' enhances reflection both of the researcher and participants of the research. As Thomas (1993) suggests, enhancing the experiential capacities to hear, see and feel. Alvesson and Deetz (2000) argue critical ethnography entails; viewing cultural phenomena in more critical terms, “accentuating the repressive and circumscribing aspects of culture,” (p199). Moreover there are ontological and epistemological differences that, it is argued, meet the criticisms of conventional methods. The ontological perspective of critical ethnography Conventional ethnography predominantly adopts an Interpretivist perspective seeing communities as social sites. Participants are seen as active sense makers with the researcher whose aim is to capture and display a unified and consensual view of the culture in the way it 'actually' exists (Alvesson and Deetz 2000). The expressed goal of such studies is, "to show how particular realities are socially produced and maintained through norms, rites, rituals and daily activities." (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000, p34). One of the central criticisms of Ethnographic work is its seeming lack of utility, particularly within the context of management research, which extols the virtues of real world relevance and communicability of results. As Thomas (1993) suggests, ‘critical’ ethnography attempts to answer the ‘so what’ question for its audience by adding a political purpose. Critical ethnographers adopt an ontology based on the understanding that organizations are historically born in conditions of struggle and domination. Critical ethnography, "begins from the premise that the structure and content of culture makes life unnecessarily more nasty, brutish, and short for some people." (Thomas 1993, p4). Where conventional ethnography attempts a "thick description" (Geertz 1973, p7) of culture, the critical ethnographer adopts a political purpose to change. Where as, "conventional ethnography describes what is; Critical Ethnography asks what could be." (Thomas 1993, p4). Here the purpose of knowledge is not solely for exploration purposes but for social change - a call to action to go beyond what is, to question with participants, what could be. Thomas identifies a central weakness with conventional ethnography where alternatively, "the ontology of critical thought includes a conception, albeit vague, that there is something better, and that the goal of

knowledge should include working towards it." (1993, p70). One final impact of this ontological position is an explicit position from the outset, that ethical issues be addressed particularly as they relate to action oriented results of the research and the acceptance of the participants in conducting the research with this in mind. As such, critically enabled ethnography claims to meet the calls from practitioners for research that is more demonstrably useful. Epistemological differences A critical agenda invokes a number of epistemological enhancements that meet additional challenges faced in more conventional approaches. Traditional ethnography often involves a 'disinterested' researcher approach (Smith 1993), adopting non participant observation with associated ethical dilemmas of misrepresentation. Critical approaches have, "a fundamental interest in emancipation and empowerment to engage [the participant] in autonomous action arising out of authentic, critical insights [facilitated by the researcher] in the social construction of human society," (Grundy 1987, p19). Critical approaches also advocate the explicit recognition of bias and subjectivity of the researcher recognizing that those researched, "have the first right to name reality to articulate how social reality functions, and to decide how issues are to be organized and defined," (Mihevc 1987 cited in McLaren 1992, p88). This essentially amounts to a depriviledging of the voice of the researcher countering one of the major criticisms of traditional ethnographic work that of researcher bias, which can also lead to greater engagement of participants. The ontological and epistemological foundations of critical research also have specific implications in the research methodology. The procedure of a critical virtua l ethnography Step one: Identify proactive communities Problems with gaining entry into communities are well established in the existing literatures. Foster (1994, 1996) reported gate keepers, such as owners of the location or site and moderators (policers of communities), actively discouraged research on the grounds of privacy concerns. However more immediate problems surround securing support from members themselves (Seidman 1991, Flick 1998, Mann and Stewart 2000). The selected research strategy must therefore take this into account if the project is to be successful. With this particular problem in mind, the report considers aspects of an adapted form of ethnography. Critical theorists with their emancipatory agenda make their decisions on research venue based on identifying, "life problems of definite and particular social agents who may be individuals, groups, or classes that are oppressed by and alienated from social processes they maintain or create but do not control." (Comstock 1982, p378). In this specific case this is an electronic community of traders of shares who seek an improved, more participative and socially supportive community. Having secured permissions from the owners of the electronic infrastructure, based on this argument of improvement and added commitment and trust of the community, the researcher can move towards making contact and securing support from key participants by illustrating improvements.

Step two: Negotiate access Having made non participative observations in the selection of a suitable community the researcher can go about securing permissions of community members (counter to the practices of certain forms of conventional ethnography who monitor without acknowledging their presence or role as in the case of the Project H group). Many virtual ethnographers do not seek permissions to study online cultures and fail to uphold basic ethical principles of open and honest research. Researchers should take steps to explain their project, role and offer benefits of the research to those being researched. For instance this might involve demonstrating the benefits of a collective vision of community, viewed from critical perspectives where membership gains from each others insights as well as the researcher’s knowledge and learning experience ultimately delivering change. It should also be made clear that your research is about them, and for them. This contact could be made through electronic means publicly on the community boards where relational activity takes place and privately through electronic mail to individual participants. It should also be noted that participants are free to withdraw from the research at any time without reason and be reminded of this and the researcher’s purpose and role throughout the course of the project (as is standard practice when following the British Psychological Societies 2000 guide to ethical research practices). Step three: Contact Of central importance to the virtual critical ethnographer is the use of participant observation where the researcher obtains first hand experience of the online culture. Whilst revealing key incidents throughout the daily happenings in the electronic community this also serves to identify additional key participants. Such close proximity to the happenings of the community permits access to feelings and perceptions not available first hand with other methods and the usual problems associated with going native should be avoided. Participant observation is a key feature of electronic community research (Horn 1998, Rheingold 1994, Turkle 1995) and the ethnographic approach (see for instance Baym 1992, Kendall 1999, Meyer and Thomas 1990, Myers 1987, Reid 1991, Sharf 1999). This engagement in the field will, through multiple observations of relational phenomena, create a greater sense of awareness from which patterns of conflict and acts of suppression will emerge. As Singh and Dickson argue, "observations.. have then to be translated into intense reflection on reasons for the behaviors and events observed. This allows the researcher to speculate about and then seek confirmatory and disconformatory evidence about the necessary conditions of the phenomenon." (2002, p. 122). Eisenhardt (1989) argues, "as investigators are trying to understand each case individually and in as much depth as feasible.. It makes sense to take advantage by altering data collection methods if such an alteration is likely to better ground the theory or to provide new theoretical insight." (p. 539). Such is not a license to be unsystematic, but to be mindful of choices and take advantage of the case's uniqueness particularly as they might relate to new themes and more representative theory.

Detailed field notes should therefore be collated over the period of the research identifying the researchers experience and evidence of that experience in the form of communications and dialogic interviews with other members over time.

Step four: Electronic depth interview Conventional ethnographic and virtual ethnographic practice alike use interviews to facilitate an understanding of meaning. Critically enhanced forms use dialogic interviews that are more interactive, explore hidden meanings through joint explorations of subject matter verifying at each stage researcher understanding before further analys is and critique. Anderson (1989) calls this the 'sharing' of joint experience and marks a very different kind of interview to the practices of old benefiting from depth and richness of results. Unstructured and semi-structured interviews should be considered as further collection tools. Garfinkel (1967) sees the latter as very much modes of conversation but with the use of protocols to help organize discussions into thematic areas. Unstructured interviews that take place online using either synchronous forms of chat (real time to facilitate rapid interaction) and/or a-synchronous email based interviews (allowing time to reflect) will act as a suitable mechanism for returning embryonic theory to community members as part of the Hermeneutic aspect of a critical virtual ethnography. Denzin (1989) and Clandinin and Connelly (1994) recognize the role of unstructured interviews in probing subjective experiences of individuals and fit particularly well within the remit of critical research. Whilst recognizing that there are many subtle differences in unstructured approaches consensus of opinion suggests that these are excellent means of adding richness to the researchers understanding of phenomena and these are enhanced by a ‘critical’ agenda. This is particularly so within the human-computer interaction field - especially as it relates to the study of electronic communities. Anders (2000) cited by Mann and Stewart (2000) argues the use of email allowed respondents to shape questioning over a period of time. The use of email was attributed to between 10 and 100 hours of dialogue per interviewee, facilitating deeper, richer insights into the electronic culture on online traders. Ferri (2000) set out to 'explore the potential of electronic mail to transgress boundaries between the researcher and researched, and the product and the process of constructing knowledge,' and adopted the strategy of collecting interviewee responses, removing identifying information and circulating responses back to all respondents for comments and feedback. This approach led to, 'very interactive, complex and rich data,' adding it was, 'an amazing way to bring people together and facilitate participatory research,' (as cited by Mann and Stewart 2000). Step five: Return results and analysis to the community Where as conventional ethnography and virtual ethnographic practices tend to stop following interview and analysis, critical ethnography ensures that any development of theory and findings are returned to participants for comment and subsequent re-working. This is vital if the research efforts are to produce emancipatory change and satisfy the objectives of enhancing the community studied.

Conclusions Recognizing that Critical theory is a diverse field it has not been the remit of this paper to apply any particular theory. Instead by identifying a range of problems facing traditional and virtual ethnographers, it has been shown how applying features of Critical theory assist in building a more robust research approach in computer-mediated environments such as virtual communities. A number of interesting questions remain. How will participants react to this emancipatory and participatory agenda? Particularly in the absence of traditional contact of the researcher in a physical sense. Will members of the virtual community be willing and able to improve conditions of these digital relationships? And, perhaps finally, how will such an approach be received by managers looking to build and sustain communities founded on greater equality, freedom and commitment. References: Altheide, D.L.,Johnson, J.M. (1994 ) "Criteria for assessing interpretative validity in qualitative research." In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. Ca. Sage. (485-499). Alvesson, M., Deetz, S. (2000) Doing Critical Management Research. London. Sage. Anderson, E., Weitz, B. (1989) "Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads." Marketing Science. 8. (4). 310-323. Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M. (1998) "Ethnography and Participant Observation." In Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks. Sage. (110-136) Bate, S. P. (1997) "Whatever happened to organizational anthropology? A review of the field of organizational ethnography and anthropological studies." Human Relations. 50. (9). 1147. Baym, N. (1992) "Computer-mediated soap talk: Communication, community and entertainment on the Net." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. Accessed Online. British Psychological Society. (2000), A Code of Conduct for Psychologists, The British Psychological Society, Leicester. Brookfield, S. D. (1987) Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D., Connelly, F. (1994) "Personal experience methods." In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks. CA. Sage. (413-427).

Comstock, D. (1982). “A Method for Critical Research.” In Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research. Edited by Eric Bredo, and Walter Feinberg. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 370-390. Denzin, N. (1978) The Research Act, A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. London. McGraw Hill. Denzin, N. (1989) Interpretive Biography. Newbury Park. CA. Sage. Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks. Sage. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (1998) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. CA. Sage. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Lowe, A. (2002) Management Research: An Introduction. London. Sage. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) "Building Theories from Case Study Research." Academy of Management Review. 14. (4). 532-550. Ferri, B. (2000) "The hidden cost of difference: Women with learning disabilities." Learning Disabilities. A Multidisciplinary Journal. 10. Flick, U. (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London. Sage. Foster, G. (1994) "Fishing with the Net for research data." British Journal of Educational Technology. 25. 2. 91-97.

Foster, P. (1996) "Observational Research." In R. Sapford and V. Jupp (eds.) Data Collection and Analysis. London. Sage. Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. London. Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York. Basic Books. Gluck, S., Patai, D. (1991) Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history. New York. Routledge. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis. London. The Falmer Press. Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London. Routledge. Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London. Sage. Horn, S. (1998) "Cyberville: Clicks, Culture and the Creation of an Online Town." New York. Warner Books.

Hurley, R. 1998, ‘Managing Change: An ethnographic approach to developing research propositions and understanding change in sales organizations’, The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 57-71. Janesick, V.J. (1998) "The Dance of Qualitative Research Design: Metaphor, Methodology and Meaning." In Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Strategies for Qualitative Enquiry. Thousand Oaks. CA. Sage. (35-55). Kendall, L. (1999) "Recontexualizing cyberspace: Methodological considerations for on- line research." In S.Jones (ed.) Doing Internet Research. Thousand Oaks. CA. Sage. (57-75). Kozinets, R. (2002) "The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities." Journal of Marketing Research. 39 (1). 61. McLaren, P. (1992). 'Collisions with Otherness: "Travelling" Theory, Post-Colonial Criticisms, and the Politics of Ethnographic Practice - the Mission of the Wounded Ethnographer'. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5, (1). 77-92. Mann, C., Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research London. Sage. Mariampolski, H. (1999) "The power of ethnography." Market Research Society.Journal of the Market Research Society. 41. (1). 75. Meyer, G., Thomas, J. (1990) "The baudy world of the byte bandit: A postmodern interpretation of the computer underground." In F. Schmalleger (ed.) Computers in Criminal Justice. Bristol. Wyndham Hall. Myers, D. (1987) "Anonymity is part of the magic: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication context." Qualitative Sociology. 10. 251-266. Nocera, J. L. A. (2002) "Ethnography and Hermeneutics in Cybercultural Research Accessing IRC Virtual Communities." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications. 7. (2). Accessed Online. Paccagnella, L. (1997) "Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications 3 (1) Accessed Online. Reid, E. (1991) "Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat." Honors thesis, Department of History, University of Melbourne, Australia. Accessed Online. Reid, E. (1995) "Virtual Worlds: Culture and Imagination." In S. G. Jones (ed.) Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community London. Sage. (164-183).

Rheingold, H. (1994) The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. London. Secker and Warburg. Reinhartz, S. (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York. Oxford University Press. Seidman, I. (1991) Interviewing as Qualitative Research. Columbia University. Teacher's College. Shadish, W. R. (1995) "The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies." American Journal of Community Psychology. 23. (3). 419. Sharf, B. (1999) "Beyond netiquette: the ethics of doing naturalistic research on the internet." In S. Jones (ed.) Doing Internet Research. Thousand Oaks. Sage. Singh, V., Dickson, J. (2002) "Ethnographic Approaches to the Study of Organizations." In D.Partington (ed.) Essential Skills for Management Research. London. Sage. (117-134). Smith, R. (1993). 'Potentials for Empowerment in Critical Education Research'. Australian Educational Researcher. 20, (2). 75-93. Stake, R. & Trumbull, D. (1982) "Naturalistic Generalizations." Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science. 7. 1-12. Thomas, J. (1993) Doing Critical Ethnography. CA. Sage. Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Williams, E. (1998) "Predicting Email effects in organizations." First Monday, A Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet. 3. (9). Accessed Online. Wolcott, H. (1995) "Making a study 'more' ethnographic." in Representation in Ethnography, J. Van Maanen, (ed.). London. Sage. (57-73).