Acquiring the data

I conducted two methods of gathering data adapted from the DCOE approach: 1) online environment mapping, which is limited to textual production in new media sites; where ‘textual’ pertains to varying forms of output such as written, visual, audio, and audio-visual materials on the Web; and, 2) contact with Internet actors, which is limited to semi-structured interviews. I describe the process of data gathering in detail below.

4.4.1 Online Environment Mapping

The first stage is mapping of the online environment. It was a recursive activity that was done starting 2010 October up to 2012 October (although I constantly revisited the sites even beyond that period). At this point in DCOE, systematic observation of the online site is the primary task. Seeing new media sites as particular environments allowed the study to consider their components in detail (Androutsopoulos, 2008). I prefer to label this phase ‘online environment mapping’ since it connotes and requires not only the systematic and meticulous identification of the elements that make up an Internet site but the careful plotting of the positions of the elements relative to one another. This was the main activity at this stage where online sites were examined as being comprised of ‘relationships and processes rather than [just]

isolated artefacts’, per Androutsopoulos (2008), who added that, ‘in considering online environments in this way, movement must be from core to periphery of a field’ (p. 5-8). When visiting a blog site, for example, the blog entry is the central object of interest with linked websites and reader comments gaining secondary, but equally important, attention. For a Facebook profile, the status posts (whether verbal or visual) are central elements followed by surrounding features such as owner’s profile, photo gallery, and friends list, among others.

Repeated and systematic identification of elements in detail and plotting their relationships to one another were the main steps considered at this stage. It was directed by an ‘online environment mapping guide’ (see Appendix A), collected by multimodal data capture, and supplemented by observation and reflective notes.

Multimodal data capture refers to the gathering and storing of text-based, visual, audio, and audio-visual data that were deemed relevant to the study. Generally, these

were saved electronically as text files, doc files, photo or video files, audio files or a combination, and retrieved for data analysis. Alternatively, in circumstances that prohibited the electronic capture of data, manual note-taking was employed. Archival functionality in the social media sites proved helpful in tracing the content production history. This provided not just a record of previous materials but a means to trace the development of certain relevant issues or ideas.

I did not aim to interact or participate in the activities that exist in the new media sites that have become part of the study, at least not in the beginning of the online environment mapping process. A minimal obtrusion on the regular online dynamics in the sites has always been aimed for despite the fact that my presence as researcher-lurker in the websites was eventually made known to interested parties not just as standard ethical procedure but for cultural considerations as well.

4.4.2 Contact with Internet actors

My approach to accessing the social media sites, whether they are open-access, semi-public or private, was to introduce my presence in the websites as an academic researcher with particular interests, objectives, and stances on certain issues that might prove significant at a later stage. Although there was a need to make known to account owners that I have been engaging or have engaged with their sites (e.g. read their blog entries) even prior to doing the study, it had to be made explicit that I was consciously doing research. This also created an opening to ask them to grant me permission to include their social media in the study (for semi-public or private websites) and subsequently participate in an interview or, favour me with their

‘acknowledgment’ to gather data from their sites (for public, open-access sites) and essentially, treat their engagement with new media and the resulting textual production as rich data sources and assure them of the confidentiality of their participation. ‘Acknowledgment’ as just mentioned is not the same as permission or consent since these are not required to study clearly publicly open sites. However, it was best to make my introduction as soon as sufficient assessment of the websites had been done during the mapping of the online environment. This act of making my presence as a researcher known was a sign of respect, provided opportunity to build rapport, and created an opening for asking them to participate in the interview.

Finally, invitation to participate in the semi-structured interview was accomplished

by sending them an e-mail that contains an introduction about myself as the researcher, a brief background of the study, an invitation to join the interview, and a closing that took the form of sharing some personal details about my family and the reason for being in New Zealand. I composed this initial e-mail with a casual tone and specifically indicated that if they agreed to participate, I would send them more detailed documents about the project (see Appendix B for samples of introductory letter and information sheet). Interviews were commonly scheduled after the second round of e-mail exchanges.

Contact with Internet actors was limited to semi-structured interviews and these focused on their online textual production (see Appendix C for interview schedule).

Prior to contacting them to schedule an interview, I saw to it that I already had enough knowledge of their websites from the initial experience and analysis in the first stage (Androutsopoulos, 2008, p.7). For this project, it was ideal to conduct the interview face-to-face since it allowed for more ease of interaction and openness of dialogue that is especially helpful in topics that are better explained extemporaneously or candidly. Also, it is culturally more appropriate and desirable to meet the participant in person and build rapport before proceeding with the interview proper. The interviews were accomplished between 2012 July to 2013 April. The sessions lasted for an average of 1.5 hours for each of the participants and were conducted at a time and in a place they preferred.

I should underscore the greater philosophical impetus that undergirded conducting the interviews despite the fact that there was no intention at all from the beginning to ascertain the meanings of pertinent social content by asking the creators directly as to their original idea – the intentional fallacy. This was, in fact, articulated by one of the prospective participants in the initial correspondence that we had. He expressed that he would not be able to answer questions pertaining to the meaning of the content of his websites but instead would ask me, as a reader, what I think they meant. It was exactly what I had in mind and hearing that from a participant validated the fact that the interpretive process in this project is achieved by careful and critical consideration of the boundedness of the text to the author. So, was there ever a need to have that talk with the authors of the blogs, websites, and Facebook accounts in the first place considering that they have no complete authority over the meanings

their works might generate? Certainly, and for three most valuable reasons: first, there was a need to hear the person behind the text, not to gauge the validity of an interpretation, but to have a glimpse of its history. And texts, like all other entities, must have a meaningful history. Second, their interpretation of their own texts may not be the one and only valid meaning to be generated, but they certainly are plausible ones like all other plausible meanings. And third, the death of the author signifies the birth of a ‘new’ text (Ricoeur, 1981) as new interpretations are made by a new reading of the text which we could also see as its ‘re-writing’. Following this logic, we could suggest then that the death of the author paves the way for the birth of new ones. The interview process was one way through which texts are rewritten when their original authors become one of the readers who enact their own interpretive practice.

4.4.3 The thesis blog

Studies of the Internet over the years have resulted in an engagement with the medium that enables researchers to realise that online content creation and consumption are not only objects of inquiry, but could also be incorporated as ways through which certain aspects of the research could be facilitated. Many Internet scholars have recommended that those who study online engagement should put up their own research website that is linked to their institutional affiliation. This not only helps in terms of practicalities but also serves as a claim to the warrant that the Internet has as a legitimate field of study.

Aside from the initial introduction, consent form, and information sheet that were provided the participants, I created a blog for the research project. This served as the online hub of the study where researcher-participant interaction was concentrated.

Kozinets (2010) recommends doing such because providing a load of information may be disruptive to an online forum or environment since particular details that are specific to the study may not be appreciated in the same way by different participants in one online setting. For example, some posters in a forum or readers of a blog may find additional information about the research or the background of the researcher interesting or significant while others may just see the same as excessive – adding unnecessary chunks of data to an otherwise ‘uncluttered’ or already busy environment. This will be more beneficial to both the participants and researcher

since it avoids unnecessary disturbance to the ‘normal’ flow of information exchange in the actual site being studied. The research website can act as the focal point of all concerns that are related to the project, a forum of exchange of opinions and insights regarding theoretical and methodological issues, and a site of sharing preliminary results (i.e. member checks). Consistent with the principle of participation that the I endeavoured to adopt, the research website aimed to facilitate a dialogic atmosphere where negotiations about various issues are undertaken.

In the end, the blog, with URL www.diasporicpinoy.wordpress.com, facilitated two major tasks. First, it served as a practical link between myself and the participants – the authors of the social media cases in the study. Second, it opened up for me the opportunity for the reflexive understanding of engaging with the Internet by using new media as both content-creation medium and meaning-generating practice – the very experiences that my participants have.

4.4.4 Data triangulation

Data triangulation is one of the ways to make research not only more valid but richer and more layered. Looking at different sources of information opens ways to a deeper understanding of the subject matter in focus.

I initially (falsely) assumed that what I was dealing with in the project were objects in the form of texts. That my main subject of study was writings and that was all there is to it. That I was to engage in a discourse analysis of texts tout court. I almost failed to realise that the ‘uncoupling’ of texts (in Chapter 3) does not absolutely apply here because my main objects of interests, along with the texts, are people – as participants – whose textual productions in new media are only a portion of their everyday individual and social practices. I do not deal with artefacts but with live texts and lives of people who, incidentally, are constructing their own

‘person-ness’ online. Thus, the three interconnected sources of data in the study are:

1. Texts: social media creations/productions in the form of a blog and a social networking account

2. Human participants: the people behind the social media texts whose thoughts were gathered through semi-structured interviews

3. Field work: as participant in a) new media engagement as social practice;

and, b) the ‘appropriation’ of the migrant experience by being a student and at the same time an employee, raising a family in a new land, and attempting to settle in a foreign place.

My research was, in the final analysis, an attempt to grasp particular experiences and practices of people. This was a study of human individuals and the symbolic acts that they do as they engage in social discourses. I have to come to realise through this research that it is so easy to lose sight of that truth. It was perhaps even made more automatic by the fact that the field of my study was the Internet, where bodily connection and face-to-face interaction are not the norm. However, what we are dealing with, even on the Internet, are human persons behind the screens and beyond the virtual networks. Whether the truth of their existence and truth of their writings are ascertained or not, what we read on the Internet are presumably products of human minds, emotions, and actions. These ‘texts’ become a testament to their desires and fears. At least for the time being, for the present assumption I opted to carry, for the specific project I had to do, these texts would not have had any meaningful existence without the individuals who had particular interests and motivations in producing meanings in particular ways with particular forms. What I attempt is to grasp their identity so that I may be able to converse with them or be a conduit of a certain form of understanding of the human condition: the Filipino identity, the condition of Filipino identity in New Zealand, and interpret them as I find my feet – as Geertz (1973) would have it – within the complexity of this particular social world.