When investigating a phenomenon as personal as identity it needs to be conducted at a close and subjective level. The way to really understand is to ask and observe. The best method to understand how the participants think and feel about the phenomena is for the researcher to immerse themself in the world of the participants. Saunders (2009) describes ethnography as a research strategy that focuses upon describing and interpreting the social world through first-hand field study. The purpose of entrenching oneself into the research is to enable the participants to offer their own descriptions and explanations of their realities in their own way.
This essentially means that the researcher seeks to interpret the research from the perspective of those involved, rather than as an impartial observer.
According to Lewis (1985) the ethnographer immerses themselves in the life of people they study and seeks to place the phenomena studied in its social and cultural context. This research strategy is not traditional in Information Systems but according to Myers (1999; Avison & Myers 1995; Klein & Myers 1999) there is a small but growing number of Information Systems researchers who have recognized the value of the ethnographic method for Information System research. Avison and Myers (1999, p. 48) list Bentley et al. (1992), Harvey and Myers (1995), Hughes et al. (1992), Lee (1991, 1992), Orlikowski (1991), Preston (1991) as examples of ethnographic work. A more recent survey of the literature also identifies Klein & Myers (1999), Schultze (2000), Corbitt & Thanasankit (2000), McBride (2008) and Eaton (2011).
Although this approach is still not widely utilized it is a growing area of research that is important to the future of understanding Information Systems. As the Internet becomes even more user-centric, the content becomes user-driven and is expected to be interactive, so there is a need to understand further the human motivations and group-specific aspects of the systems.
The best way to create rich data and understand a deeper level of technology acceptance is to observe and ask participants in the discipline. This sort of information cannot be gained from surveys or quick questions and answers. Better systems, more tailored technology and intuitive applications will be the consequences of understanding, not only for the end users, but also the people who create the technologies.
According to Burgess (1985) there are four features to ethnographic studies: that the research should take place in a natural setting; that the study should be flexible and change if the
circumstances require; that the research was as much about the observation of social process as it was about the search for meaning, given to the process, by the participants in it. These ideas are supported by Corbitt (2000, p. 122) reiterating that data collection and analysis occur simultaneously and, as a result, ‘it is dialectical in that theory emerges from the data rather than from the imposition of theory on data’.
Ethnography is best understood when research is done in context. Historically the major change in the field of ethnography was when it moved from the museum-type collections of cultural oddities (Myers 2009) to ‘trying to understand the meaning of particular cultural practices in context’ (Harvey & Myers 1995). Geertz (1988) supports the thick descriptions (semiotic) school of ethnography. Myers (2009, p. 96) states that ‘the ethnographer has to search out and analyse symbolic forms – words, images, institutions, behaviours … he [Geertz] says that anthropologists need to understand the “webs of significance” which people weave within the cultural context, and these webs of significance can be communicated to others by thickly describing the situation in its context’. This best describes the way that the researcher has approached this study, with context being both group/role focused, and digital.
Ethnography is a naturalistic way of researching phenomena in the context in which it occurs. It seeks to gain an individual insight into what participants think, and it is not appropriate in this situation to use data generation techniques that over-simplify the complexities of everyday life.
This is why ethnography often uses observational techniques to understand better what is occurring in reality (Saunders et al. 2009).
Nguyen et al. (2006, p. 26) describe ethnographic studies as ‘complex, messy, dynamic and changing, and rarely able to be moulded or fitted into some recipe’. This description seems to be accurate for this study, but the design of the research strategy came from Bryman’s (2004, p. 89) model:
1. General research questions,
2. Selecting relevant site(s) and subjects 3. Collection of relevant data
4. Interpretation of data
5. Conceptual and theoretical work (a. tighter specification of the research question/s and b. collection of further data)
6. Write up finding/conclusions
By following these steps the subsequent design was created to best answer the research question and identify how the elements of Identity theory adapts to the Digital domain (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2: Research design
Following Bryman (2004) as a guide, the research design commenced with an in-depth review of existing literature in the areas of Social Media and Digital Identity. Then a theoretical context was developed and data generation instruments were designed. After ethics approval was granted the data generation stages began. The first phase was semi-structured interviews, the second phases were online observations (part I for individuals and part II for groups) and finally follow-up of semi-structured interviews were administered. The different methods of data collection allowed for methodological triangulation of the results thereby providing richer information (Saunders et al. 2009).
The results were analyzed and this informed the next phase of the research as well as the theoretical context. The analysis was done in cycles to find meaning in the context of the extant
literature. The interviews and observational data were coded into tables in order to understand any similarities, differences and patterns. The findings resulted in a modification of the framework. The final stage is the discussion of findings and further revision of the framework.
Ethnography requires the researcher to be entrenched in the research and, for this study, to gather information at an individual level. To gain a well rounded understanding of individuals and their formation of identity on Social Media it was important to generate data in a number of different forms. While interviews may have sufficed, an additional dimension of observation was structured to allow for richer information to emerge. This permitted cross-referencing between what individuals thought they did and what they actually did by way of watching their online behavior. Therefore this research design included three phases to collect and analyse data so as to strengthen the information shared. Meaning can be garnered from the way individuals present themselves and to draw attention to patterns and sequences of which they may not be consciously aware.
The data for this study was generated between February 2011 and April 2012. While the initial concept was that the study would be cross-sectional it became evident as the study progressed that the timeline was to become to some extent longitudinal. Because the data was gathered at two or three different points in time, the study was carried longitudinally across a period of time. The information gathered presents a moment in time for the individuals in terms of how they present themselves; but the interviews, observations and follow-up interviews clearly indicate that information was gathered over time. It was not the purpose of the study to compare the different time horizons but rather to question findings over a period of time. This not only gave the researcher time to analyse data and reflect on its meaning but rather to also to give the participants time to reflect on how they use the technology. While ideally it would be interesting to follow the participants over a period of time to see how their identity develops and changes, this was not possible due to the time constraints of the project.
Data generation commenced in February 2011 and continued until April 2012. The following table (Table 4.1) illustrates the timeline.
Table 4.1: Timetable of data generation
Phase one Semi-structured interviews February 2011 – November 2011 Phase two I Observations (all individuals) February 2011 – March 2012 Phase two II Observations (3 month intensive) September 2011 – December 2011 Phase three Semi-structured interviews February 2012 – April 2012
This section discusses in detail the way that the data was generated for this study. It outlines the three phases of data collection and the analysis process. Bryne (2001, p. 1) states that ‘qualitative methods seek to represent holism and to provide contextual knowledge of the phenomenon being studied’. The method for this study was chosen to represent different groups as a context for the Digital Identity.
The research aim, of observing individuals to gain an insight into how they present themselves on Facebook and Twitter, provided the framework for the literature review in order to determine the boundaries of what was relevant (Blaikie 2009). From this, a research question was chosen and a theoretical context of elements from Identity theory were adopted. The research design included an ethnographic study using the methods of semi-structured interviews, observation, and concluding with follow-up interviews. The analysis was guided by Klein and Myers’s (1999) principles for Interpretive field research with particular emphasis on the Hermeneutic circle.
This study will make a major contribution to the current knowledge on the management of personal information on Social Media and the formation of a Digital Identity.