Abstract

This is the first article to describe how broadening of the term netnography in qualitative research is leading to misperceptions and missed opportunities. The once accepted need for human presence in netnographic studies is giving way to nonparticipatory (passive) approaches, which claim to be naturalistic and bias-free. While this may be tenable in some environments, it also removes the opportunity for cocreation in online communities and social media spaces. By contrast, participatory (active) netnographers have an opportunity to conduct their research in a way that contributes value and a continuity of narrative to online spaces. This article examines the ways in which netnographies are being used and adapted across a spectrum of online involvement. It explores the ways in which netnographies conform to, or depart from, the unique set of analytic steps intended to provide qualitative rigor. It concludes by advocating for active netnography, one which requires a netnographic “slog” where researchers are prepared for the “blood, sweat, and tears” in order to reap rich benefits.

RAS ID

23801

Document Type

Journal Article

Date of Publication

2017

Funding Information

Australian Research Council

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences

Grant Number

ARC Number : LP0990807, ARC Number : LP0775520, ARC Number : LP0453946

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Publisher

Sage Publications

Comments

Costello, L., McDermott, M. L., & Wallace, R. (2017). Netnography: range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 10.1177/1609406917700647.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917700647

Download

Share

 
COinS
 

Link to publisher version (DOI)

10.1177/1609406917700647