Thinking out of the Box: Toward a Progressive Politics of Live Research
My upcoming presentation at the networked politics event at Anglia Ruskin University will interrogate the political and pedagogical implications of conducting “live research”, particularly on social media platforms like twitter, blogs, and Facebook. While one could argue that “live research” is as old as ethnography, participant observation, or a host of other scientific methods, this paper argues that hyper-immediation -- mediation that valorizes “real-time” and buries, literally at the level of the vertical ticker interface, “unproductive” communicators -- requires at least contemplating the political ethics of research in-the-moment, if not a rigorous interrogation of such sites of hyper-immediate sensations and impressions. While social networking provides for distributed and user based forms of sharing – and aggregating on the part of surveillance driven info-profilers – it is argued that it is social media’s hyper-immediation of the present (and the presence), and not distributed, peer, or user generated communications per se, that has problematized age old debates about privacy, publicity, visibility, and participation, in addition to more traditional political concepts such as debate, contemplation, and deliberation.
Drawing on a case study of live research conducted with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC TV News), the paper will rethink liberal and left critiques of intuition based “thinking out of the box” style research protocols and the equation of real-time research with neo-liberal models of research innovation and dissemination. Such a project is made all the more pressing given the impact that contemporaries theories of affectivity have had upon political research (most notably public opinion research) – arguments that have attempted to expand the ideological plane to the “gut” senses. In questioning the ethically and politically dubious projects that have emerged from some intuition-based research programs, this paper concludes by making the case for a collaborative and radically interdisciplinary research agenda to address the emergence of real-time forms of communication and networking.
Internet-Time, Hyper-Immediation and Online Ethnography
in Response to Greg Elmer’s position paper
Veronica Barassi, iCES Regents College London
Elmer’s position paper suggests that the relationship between social research and network politics, needs to be questioned thoroughly, not only by looking at the new methodological challenges created by the very structure of digital networks, but also by considering the way in which social media platforms are affecting the logic of social research. Here, I will draw notion of hyperimmediation, to reflect on the methodological complexities online ethnographers face when confronted with network politics, and raise some questions on participant observation on web 2.0 platforms.
In the concluding session of the ‘Re-Thinking Network Politics Conference’, Elmer mentioned that in understanding network politics, a critical question that needs to be addressed is the question of “time”. Online theories and methodologies have been entrenched with spatial metaphors, and this is clear when we consider concepts such as cyberspace or virtual reality. In this framework the notion of time, of internet time has been widely neglected. With the development of web 2.0 platforms and the extension of – as Elmer has pointed out – hyperimmediation a type of “mediation that valorizes “real-time” and buries, literally at the level of the vertical ticker interface, “unproductive” communicators”, the question of time can no longer be neglected.
There are multiple ways in which we can contextualise ‘internet time’, we can consider it as a combination of different simultaneous temporalities or dwell on the way to properly understand it and measure it (Leong et al, 2009). Alternatively we could discuss internet time as a direct cause/effect of network politics that is placing serious constrains on “live research” and “online participant observation”.
Generally speaking, in contrast to other qualitative methodologies, the advantage of participant observation is that it gathers data, which is often not visible or evident. By being a participant, the researcher feeds her own theory with details gathered through embodied personal experience (or disembodied in the case of online technologies). By being an observer the researcher is able to engage with issues, silently, without asking direct questions and thus enabling the data to surface on its own. Direct experience and observation enable the ethnographer to gain a thick (Marcus, 1998) knowledge of the internal politics of social groups, as well as a fair understanding of the human contradictions, emotions and negotiations that define the context of research.
The configuration of network politics, seriously affects what is unique of “online participant observation” as a qualitative methodology. This is because, in the analysis of social media, for instance, ‘internet time’ determines what is visible and what is not, and hyperimmediation obscures the voice of key informants and hides important information. Thus the very structure of the technology limits and constrains the personal experience of the participant observer by determining the data that it is available for her to gather.
The consequences of this situation are yet unknown. What is certain is that many questions need to me addressed on the quality and ethics of contemporary online participant observation. In addressing these questions scholars should look for practical solutions to start dealing with the politics of networks, and coming to terms with internet time and hyperimmediation.
One possible solution to tackle internet time in social research would be to understand the importance of combining online participant observation with offline research, and consider the way in which people understand and negotiate notions of hyperimmediation and internet time.
In proposing this solution I am motivated by a specific research agenda that is grounded in the belief that to understand the social impact of media technologies and we must look at the larger picture, and consider the social, cultural and political contexts in which they are embedded (Couldry, 2004; Silverstone, 2005). In this frame of thought, I believe that we should understand network politics not merely as a complex cultural, ideological and technological process but also as a social experience; one that is negotiated by human beings within everyday social contexts.
However, I am confident that there are as many solutions to the problem as there are research approaches. Hence, like Elmer, I believe in the importance of creating a collaborative and interdisciplinary research agenda to address the emergence of real-time forms of communication and networking.
References:
Couldry, Nick (2004) ‘Theorizing Media as Practice’ in Social Semiotics vol. 14 (2):115-132
Leong, S, Mittew, T, Celletti, M, and Pearson E (2009) ‘The Question Concerning (Internet) Time’ New Media & Society, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1267-1285
Marcus, George E (1998) Ethnography through Thick and Thin Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Silverstone, Roger (1999) Why Study the Media? London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage