Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Miguel, C (2016)
Publisher: Sammenslutningen af Medieforskere i Danmark (SMID)
Journal: MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P87-96, Communication. Mass media, Social media use, Internet, methodology, cross-platform, intimacy
This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of how to study the way people build intimacy and manage privacy through social media interaction. It explores the research design and methodology of a research project based on a multi-sited case study composed of three different social media platforms: Badoo, CouchSurfing, and Facebook. This cross-platform approach is useful to observe how intimacy is often negotiated across different platforms. The research project focuses on the cities of Leeds (UK) and Barcelona (Spain). In particular, this article discusses the methods used to recruit participants and collect data for that study - namely, participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and user profiles analysis. This cross-platform approach and multi-method research design is helpful to investigate the nature of intimacy practices facilitated by social media at several levels: online/offline, across different platforms, among different types of relationships, within both new and existing relationships, and in different locations
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ardèvol, E., & Gómez-Cruz, E. (2014). Digital ethnography and media practices. Th e International Encyclopedia of Media Studies.
    • Beninger, K., Fry, A., Jago, N., Lepps, H., Nass, L., & Silvester, H. (2014). Research using social media: Users' views. NatCen Social Research. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/282288/ p0639-research-using-social-media-report-final-190214.pdf.
    • Berg, B. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Pearson Education.
    • Borgatti, S. P., & Molina, J.L. (2005). Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations. Social Networks, 27(2), 107-117. DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.004
    • boyd, d. (2014). It's Complicated: Th e Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale: University Press.
    • boyd, d. (2010a). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 39-58). London: Routledge.
    • boyd, d. (2010b). Friendship. In M. Ito et al. (Eds.), Digital Research Confidential: Th e Secrets of Studying Behavior Online (pp. 79-115). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Büscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Th eory, 12(1), 99-116.
    • Cooper, D. (2007). Well, you go there to get off: Visiting feminist care ethics through a women's bathhouse. Feminist Th eory, 8(3), 243-262. DOI: 10.1177/1464700107082364.
    • Couldry, N. (2011). Th e necessary future of the audience … and how to research it. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), Handbook of Media Audiences (pp. 213-229). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
    • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    • Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
    • Ess & AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002). Ethics Guide. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from: www.aoir. org/reports/ethics.pdf.
    • Ess, C. (2012). Foreword. In D. Heider, & A. Massanari (Eds.), Digital Ethics: Research & Practice (Digital Formations) (pp. IX-XIX). New York: Peter Lang.
    • Falzon, M.A. (2009). Introduction: Multi-sited ethnography. In Mark-Anthony Falzon (Ed.), Multi sited Ethnography: Th eory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. London: Ashgate.
    • Farrokhi, F., & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. (2012). Rethinking convenience sampling: Defining quality criteria. hT eory and Practice in Language Studies. 2(4), 784-792.
    • Ferreday, D. (2013). Afterword: Digital relationships and feminist hope. In K. Orton-Johnson, & N. Prior (Eds.), Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives (pp. 51-60). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Finch, J. (1993). “It's great to have someone to talk to”: Ethics and politics of interviewing women. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice (pp.166-180). London: Sage Publications.
    • Gajjala, R. (2003). South Asian digital diasporas and cyberfeminist webs: Negotiating globalization, nation, gender and information technology design. Contemporary South Asia, 12(1), 41-56.
    • Gehl, R.W. (2014). Reverse Engineering Social Media: Software, Culture, and Political Economy in New Media Capitalism. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
    • Gray, D.E. (2009). Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage.
    • Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
    • Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    • Hogan, B. (2010). Th e presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 30(6), 377-386. DOI: 10.1177/0270467610385893.
    • Horst, H.A., & Miller, D. (2013). Digital Anthropology. London: Berg.
    • Jamieson, L. (2012). Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentricism? Sociological Research Online.. 1(1). Retrieved February 9, 2013, from http:// clarion.ind.in/index.php/clarion/article/view/11
    • Kalinowski, C., & Matei, S. A. (2011). Goffman meets online dating: Exploring the “virtually” socially produced self. Journal of Social Informatics, 16, 6-20. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.ris.uvt.ro/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/ris16adam.pdf.
    • Kember, S., & Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.
    • Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: Th e emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
    • Markham, A.N. (1998). Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira.
    • Markham, A.N., & Baym, N.K. (Eds.). (2008). Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
    • Markham, A., & Buchanan, B. (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.
    • Massey, D. (1992). Politics of space/ time. New Left Review, 196, 65-84.
    • Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169-187. DOI: 10.1177/1367877912452486
    • Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Miller, H. (1995). Th e presentation of self in electronic life: Goffman on the Internet. Paper presented at Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space Conference, College, University of London, June, 1995. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.dourish.com/classes/ics234cw04/miller2.pdf.
    • Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). Th e Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Berg.
    • Miller, D. (2011). Tales from Facebook. Cambridge: Polity.
    • Morgan, D. (2011). Rethinking Family Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
    • Orgad, S. (2005). Th e transformative potential of online communication: Th e case of breast cancer patients' Internet spaces. Feminist Media Studies, 5(2), 141-161.
    • Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
    • Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: Th e New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Reinharz, S., & Davidman, L. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Renzetti, C.M., & Lee, R.M. (1993). Researching Sensitive Topics. London: Sage Publications.
    • Robinson, L., & Schulz, J. (2009). New avenues for sociological inquiry evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 43(4), 685-698.
    • Rybas, N. & Gajjala, R. (2007). Developing cyberethnographic research methods for understanding digitally mediated identities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/282/620
    • Sannicolas, N. (1997). Erving Goffman, dramaturgy, and on-line relationships. Cibersociology. Site. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.cybersociology.com/files/1_2_sannicolas.html
    • Senft, T.M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    • Sieber, J.E. (2010). Life is short, ethics is long. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 5(4), 1-2. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.1.
    • Sin, C.H. (2003). Interviewing in “place”: Th e socio-spatial construction of interview data. Area, 35(3), 305- 312.
    • Skeggs, B. (1995). Feminist Cultural Th eory: Process and Production. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    • Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge.
    • Sumiala, J., Hjelmb, T., Tikkaa, M., and Suurpääc, L. (2014). Studying youth in the media city: Multi-sited reflections. EASA Media Anthropology Network's 46th e-Seminar 25 February/11 March 2014. Retrieved July 12, 2013 from http://www.media-anthropology.net/file/sumiala_etal_youthmediacity.pdf
    • Turkle, S. (1996). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    • Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: Th e University of Chicago Press.
    • Watts, J. (2006). “Th e outsider within”: Dilemmas of qualitative feminist research within a culture of resistance. Qualitative Research. 6(3), 385-402.
    • Wessels, B. (2012). Identification and the practices of identity and privacy in everyday digital communication. New Media & Society, 14(8), 1377-1396. DOI: 10.1177/1461444812450679.
    • Wiles, R. (2013). What Are Qualitative Research Ethics? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    • Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Yin, R.K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article