Internet Research
What's the course about?
The course is centred around internet studies, different approaches to life online and trying out instruments for its understanding and analysis.

Internet studies is an interdisciplinary field focusing on the internet as its key object and problem. It is a field that bridges social sciences and humanities. It is mostly based on sociological, anthropological, historical and socio-psychological theoretical legacies and methods. While not being strictly academic, this area of studies can be useful to equip one with instruments for applied analysis as well as personal reflection and critical thinking about the internet and the so-called 'digital turns'.

The internet we'll study is a phenomenon changing both throughout its history and depending on different social situations. So, firstly, the course participants will acquire tools to define their particular situation and common sense. That allows to tune the research question and position when questioning the internet and other people's practices there.

After setting up their own understanding of the internet and getting acquainted with the research field participants continue with the research of their own online life and start making digital ethnography research of the topic or group they are interested in. We discuss the methods and provide the collective discussion of each part of the research, including a data session as a collective workshop.

This research experience is also a matter of political and ethical concern, so the final part of the course is mostly designed as a critical data studies seminar. This part means not only gradually getting better at analytics, but also seeing research as a social and political action influencing one's own object.

At the end of the course we'll have a mini-conference on the student's research and practice the art of giving and receiving feedback on each other's research.
Course Design
The course lasts for two months and is divided into three parts:
  • The first one is focused on the internet as a complex phenomenon and user practices there. It works to set up the skills of reflexive users. It is also helpful to understand the ways of other people's existence online and changing the meaning of the internet as a technology and a part of people's lives.
  • The second part is online and it is a step-by-step research process where we have two synchronization sessions to discuss the problems and achievements of each part.
  • The third part of the course is more focused on the reflection of what we can know due to the internet. It starts with the data session of qualitative ethnography results and continues with a series of critical debates and other forms of reflection on online data studies.
1 approaching the field
February 3-12
1.1. The Internet as a complex phenomenon. 08/02.
Introduction

Lecture: authenticity, self-disclosure and datafied governmentality in the internet. Three subjects and roles we can take when thinking about it: user, IT-producer and researcher.

Discussion: questioning responsibility and knowledge distributed among us as users, IT-producers and researchers. What does it mean to be an IT-producer?

Result: collective summary of the lecture and discussion in Google docs

Task: draw an ideal map of how the self and data/knowledge about it might be organized. Questions for the task:

  • What is the particular online environment you are interested in? How is it organised?
  • Who has agency there, what are the roles of each actor?
  • What does it mean to be an IT-producer for you here?
  • What are the basic concerns when you draw the data map of the self (without any additional reading on it)? What types / sources of knowledge it is based on?
Literature:

Foucault, M. (2019). Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Penguin UK.
Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (p. 56). London: Harmondsworth.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
Selke, S. (Ed.). (2016). Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging-between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer.
Wyatt, S. Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the Internet.
1.2. Internet as a research topic. Part 1. 10/02.
Lecture: concepts and metaphors grounding basic approaches to internet studies. Scales of the internet: the user and "wholesome" perspective.

Discussion: professional VS personal questions about the internet: a debate about controversial issues to figure out what metaphors and approaches to the internet we use

Result: elaborated and structured list of issues (list, table, doodle, mindmap, etc.) based on the task of the previous meeting and the discussion

Tasks: start making the "My Online Life" project that will become a collective wallpaper (description below) + read sample articles in groups

Literature:

Markham, A. N. (2003, October). Metaphors reflecting and shaping the reality of the Internet: Tool, place, way of being. In Association of internet researchers conference, Toronto, Canada (pp. 16-19).
Kolozaridi P., Shchetvina A., Tiidenberg K. No Country for IT-Men: Post-Soviet Internet Metaphors of Who and How Interacts with the Internet, in: Metaphors of Internet: Ways of Being in the Age of Ubiquity. Bern : Peter Lang, 2020. P. 236-249.

Articles for review:
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
McNeill, L. S. (2009). The end of the Internet: A folk response to the provision of infinite choice. Folklore and the internet: vernacular expression in a digital world, 1, 80.
Winter, R., & Lavis, A. (2020). Looking, but not listening? Theorizing the practice and ethics of online ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(1-2), 55-62.
Flyverbom, M., Madsen, A. K., & Rasche, A. (2017). Big data as governmentality in international development: Digital traces, algorithms, and altered visibilities. The Information Society, 33(1), 35-42.
Shifman, L. (2012). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New media & society, 14(2), 187-203.
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2011). Mobile phone parenting: Reconfiguring relationships between Filipina migrant mothers and their left-behind children. New media & society, 13(3), 457-470.
Steinmetz, K. F. (2012). Message received: Virtual ethnography in online message boards. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(1), 26-39.
Sandvig, C. (2006). The Internet at play: Child users of public Internet connections. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 932-956.
Evgeny Morozov and Francesca Bria (2018) Rethinking the Smart City. Democratizing Urban Technology
Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2020). Extending the Internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 1461444820983603.
ASSA blog https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/assa/

Article analysis scheme:


***What exactly was accomplished in the paper?
***What field of research did you work in?
***What actions did the authors perform?
***How did you find the main issue?
***How did their ideas and questions transform during the research?
1.3. Internet as a research topic. Part 2. 12/02.
Reading: presenting articles and the ways in which the research models are constructed in each one

Seminar: research model seminar on the first task + first Life Online results. The key questions will be: what's problematic with the internet in one's own experience + in the internet as a "big thing"? How can we deal with these problems, what should we study?

Result: list of methodological ideas for the research model

Task: start making research on online ethnography (see below: on this stage you need to think about the question and basic research model)

Literature:
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2017). Research ethics in context: Decision-making in digital research.
1.4. Internet as a research topic. Part 3. 15/02.
Lecture: the Internet as a transformative and transforming phenomenon: several vignettes about the history of the network and the user evolution

Seminar: Making a collective wall newspaper based on each history of experiencing internet and discussing the stages and vectors of its' transformation

Result
: ideas about the past, the future and what might change ― a collective summary

Literature:

Pink, S. (2016). Digital ethnography. Innovative methods in media and communication research, 161-165.
Abbate, J. (2017). What and where is the Internet?(Re) defining Internet histories. Internet Histories, 1(1-2), 8-14.
Abbate, J. (2000). Inventing the internet. MIT press.
Olia Lialina. A Vernacular web. Indigenous and Barbarians.
Donna Haraway. A Cyborg Manifesto.
John Perry Barlow A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
2 fieldwork
February 15 - March 13
  • 1st week field chosen + preliminary plan for the observation + diary started

  • 2nd week the problem + questions and preliminary collection of the artefacts

  • 3rd week artefacts are collected and observations are structured

  • 4th week preliminary summary is ready + list of problems and concerns

To-do list:
- the field is more or less clear
- the preliminary plan of observation is here in your drafts
- you initiated the diary and understand what to write there
- you have collected some artefacts
- you have questions on what to do now
- the observation is lasting and you have restructured it
- the preliminary summary is ready
- the list of concerns is ready

materials for fieldwork based on the literature list from:
http://clubforinternet.net/school_18/ethnography
http://offlineisnotenough.tilda.ws/onlinepractices/4
http://clubforinternet.net/school_18/ethics
3 analysis and concerns
15-31 March
3.1. Sum up session. 17/03
Seminar: what has been done during fieldwork: data session

Result: feedback for each group

Task: read the AOIR guideline + articles and prepare the critical questions towards it

Literature:

boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, communication & society, 15(5), 662-679.
Data Science professional Code http://www.datascienceassn.org/code-of-conduct.html
AOIR Ethics Guidelines https://aoir.org/ethics/
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208.
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 103-131. Wang, T (2016) Why Big Data Needs Thick Data
Boellstorff, T. (2013). Making big data, in theory. First Monday, 18(10).
3.2. Ethics and politics in online research. Part 1. 19/03.
Lecture: Ethics, politics and critical approach to the data research: tuning the reflexion. How both a user and an IT-producer are configured by knowledge and research.

Seminar: discussing the articles + guidelines and filing in the list of concerns about online data, its present and future

Result: list of concerns about own research and the internet as a research field

Task: conversation/interview in pairs about what everyone thinks about these concerns

Questions:

  • What are the concerns that are clear for you from this guidelines list?
  • Do you find these particular concerns important for you as a
    a_user,
    b_IT-specialist,
    c_ researcher,
    d_ citizen?
  • How can you analyse them, what is your aim for such a reflection?
  • Do you think you can deal with them in any of these roles?
3.3. Ethics and politics in online research. Part 2. 24/03
  • LARP

Task: finish the research + make a list of political and ethical concerns based on the interviews + LARP

Sum up the discussion about configuring each experience and narrative.

  • What metaphors are used?
  • What political positions are debated?
  • Which problems are invented + reinvented?
  • What practices can be involved here?
3.4. Mini-conference. 26/03
  • mini-conference
3.5. Results + Feedback session. 29/03
  • discussing the results of the course (interviews + conference + research process)
Questions for self-check and discussion how your answers and reflections changed:

  • What is the particular online-environment you are interested in? How is it organised?
  • Who has agency there, what are the roles of each actor?
  • What does it mean to be an IT-producer for you here?
  • What are the basic concerns when you draw the data map of the self (without any additional reading on it)? What types / sources of knowledge it is based on?
Assessments
  • Life Online Media Diary wallpaper (own page)
    Deadline is 15/02
    (30% of the final grade)
  • Research
    Deadline is 24/03
    (50% of the final grade)
  • Synchronous work (participation)
    (20% of the final grade)
Literature:


Basics

  1. Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (p. 56). London: Harmondsworth.
  2. Foucault, M. (2019). Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Penguin UK.
  3. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). How to infrastructure. Handbook of new media: Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs, 230-245.
  4. Sandvig, C. (2013). The Internet as infrastructure. In The Oxford handbook of internet studies.
  5. Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy.Journal of Legal and Political Philosophy, 1, 115-126.
  6. Collins, H.M. & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-96.
Data as a problem
  1. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, communication & society, 15(5), 662-679.
  2. Data Science professional Code http://www.datascienceassn.org/code-of-conduct.htm...
  3. AOIR Ethics Guidelines https://aoir.org/ethics/
  4. Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208.
  5. Kennedy, H. (2018). Living with data: Aligning data studies and data activism through a focus on everyday experiences of datafication. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, (1).
  6. Wang, T (2016) Why Big Data Needs Thick Data
  7. Boellstorff, T. (2013). Making big data, in theory. First Monday, 18(10).

Method + Ethics
  1. Markham, A. N. (2003, October). Metaphors reflecting and shaping the reality of the Internet: Tool, place, way of being. In Association of internet researchers conference, Toronto, Canada (pp. 16-19).
  2. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2017). Research ethics in context: Decision-making in digital research.
  3. Zimmer, M. (2010). "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and information technology, 12(4), 313-325.
  4. Wyatt, S. Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the Internet.
  5. Pink, S. (2016). Digital ethnography. Innovative methods in media and communication research, 161-165.
  6. Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 103-131.

History + Manifests
  1. Wiener, N. (2019). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT press.
  2. Asmolov, G., Kolozaridi P. (2020) Digital Russia.
  3. Braidotti, R. (1996). Cyberfeminism with a difference. Futures of critical theory: Dreams of difference, 239-259.
  4. Abbate, J. (2017). What and where is the Internet?(Re) defining Internet histories. Internet Histories, 1(1-2), 8-14.
  5. Kolozaridi, P., & Muravyov, D. (2020). The narratives we inherit: the local and global in Tomsk's internet history. Internet Histories, 4(1), 49-65.
  6. Driscoll, K., & Paloque-Berges, C. (2017). Searching for missing "net histories". Internet Histories, 1(1-2), 47-59.
  7. Low tech magazine
  8. Abbate, J. (2000). Inventing the internet. MIT press.
  9. Olia Lialina. A Vernacular web. Indigenous and Barbarians.
  10. Donna Haraway. A Cyborg Manifesto.
  11. John Perry Barlow A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Research+Critique examples
  1. Livingstone, S. (2005). Audiences and publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere (Vol. 2). Intellect Books.
  2. Selke, S. (Ed.). (2016). Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging-between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer.
  3. Miller, D., Sinanan, J., Wang, X., McDonald, T., Haynes, N., Costa, E., ... & Nicolescu, R. (2016). How the world changed social media (p. 286). UCL press.
  4. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
  5. Flyverbom, M., Madsen, A. K., & Rasche, A. (2017). Big data as governmentality in international development: Digital traces, algorithms, and altered visibilities. The Information Society, 33(1), 35-42.
  6. Evgeny Morozov and Francesca Bria (2018) RETHINKING THE SMART CITY Democratizing Urban Technology
  7. ASSA blog https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/assa/

Made on
Tilda