Micro netnography

The Philosophical Road Trip – my micro netnography

The mooc I participated in was about a branch of philosophy called Phenomenology. Phenomenology contends that reality resides within human consciousness and not independent of it. The philosophy focuses on the first person view and involves detailed examinations of the world as it is perceived by the human subject. Such a focus seemed to fit well with an ethnographic study which attempts to explore a culture in great part by participating within it, thereby gaining an understanding of the point of view of the subject(s) of the study.

In their paper, A phenomenology of learning large: the tutorial sphere of xMooc video lectures, (Adams et al, 2014), the authors state their intention to focus on ‘singular, lived particularities’ (p.202) and in a similar way, I chose some of the individual lived experiences of the mooc to evoke an idea of the lifeworld of the student. I wanted to convey some of the systems of meaning that operated in the mooc, reflect the voices I heard, the cultural norms that were evident and some idea of the practices undertaken. I was not wholly successful in this, not least because of my poor command of iMovie!

Phenomenologists urge the co-dependence of the subject and the object, claiming that neither one can exist without the other. This means that no objective account of a community is possible without it being coloured by the disposition and perspective of the observer. For the phenomenologist, exploration of the conscious mind prompts questions of how to ‘share subjectivity’ (‘inter-subjectivity’, a place where our holographic alter-selves can commune) and calls into question any guarantee of objective authenticity in the ethnographical object. The video clip is, then, my netnography.

In similar recognition, Hine (2000) questions any objective ethnographic account,

“A search for truly authentic knowledge about people or phenomena is doomed to be ultimately irresolvable” (p.49).

But she also suggests that for the ethnographer, a balance between participation in the cultural community being studied and a ‘zooming out’ to comment upon it seems required. This balance, for Hine, is best maintained by the inclusion of personal narrative into the ethnography, as she quotes Pratt,

“Personal narrative mediates this contradiction between the involvement called for in fieldwork and the self-effacement called for in formal ethnographic description … by inserting into the ethnographic text the authority of the personal experience out of which the ethnography is made.” (Hine, 2000, p.48)

I have attempted to demonstrate an analytical retreat from the participatory fray in the mini-clip. I didn’t enlist the help of informants with which to triangulate my account as I chose not to let my fellow students know I was observing in case it unduly influenced the experience of the community. I did seek the approval of the course leader, assuring him that any student data would be anonymised, and he responded positively, imposing no further conditions. Online, it has been easy for me to lurk in the shadows or remain an unobtrusive but participating presence, a situation easier to achieve in a mediated environment. I experienced a tension surrounding my non-disclosed presence, but in fact, not a great proportion of the communication took place between students which would have compounded the unease.

My impression of the community was that it comprised a friendly collection of individuals pursing a common goal in parallel with each other, heeding the ‘teacher’ rather than a connectivist, constructivist group learning from each other. In spite of encouragement from the course leader, students tended towards a single post in each discussion; a result, perhaps, of the mooc’s required participation in which the power structures at play may inhibit unforced involvement and in which the constraining and prescriptive edX platform may have played a role. As much or as little as we shape our software, it shapes us with its inbuilt unfreedoms and control. It was interesting to note that the course leader himself voiced some frustration with the platform.

Hine’s discussion of authenticity and identity online did not seem particularly relevant to the netnography because I wanted to evoke an experience of the mooc and not debate the authenticity of my fellow-students’ identities. For me, the project was to describe things as they were and not fabricate a measure of what they might otherwise be.

The subject of online identity was alluded to in one of the Discussion Forums, but my role as netnographer was to relate this interesting phenomenon rather than use it to question the foundations of the netnography. (Something I didn’t actually do in the clip as it turned out.) The debate about online authenticity was completely germane to the subject of the mooc as it extended discussion of Sartre’s exposition of ‘The Look’: how our consciousness of ourself as a ‘being-for-itself’ comes into existence when we are made suddenly aware that we have become the object of another’s consciousness – when we are observed. I would have liked to incorporate a notion of this in the video which invoked interesting thoughts of lurkers in online communities too.

Heidegger’s concept of time was a feature of one of the units and a notion of subjective timescales was attempted by the speeding up of the limes frames and the varied pace of the car clips. For copyright reasons I wasn’t able to use the Beatles’ Hey Jude track that was featured in the course. It was employed to illustrate how in each moment of listening we carry the remembrance of what we have just heard and the anticipation of the continuance of the song. This phenomenological perspective of time seems to fit neatly with Kozinets’ exposition of types of interaction in online communities where members become more committed when they “anticipate future interaction” and, perhaps, as they build up a store of remembered valued exchanges. For me, it was the course leader (whose voice was dominant) and whose friendly and expert exposition commanded an enduring sense of attention.

Hine describes how

‘the sustained presence of an ethnographer in the field setting, combined with intensive engagement with the everyday life of the inhabitants of the field site’ is what helps “reduce the puzzlement which other people’s ways of life can evoke.” (p.63).

In phenomenological style, she continues, quoting Gertz (1993),

At the same time, ethnography can be a device for inducing that same puzzlement by ‘displacing the dulling sense of familiarity with which the mysteriousness of our own ability to relate perceptively to one another is concealed from us’. (p.64)

This elliptically-expressed notion, that we are able to perceive of each other in new and enlightening ways if not dulled by familiarity is echoed in the mooc’s encouragement to seek out puzzlement and surprise; crucial tools employed by the phenomenologist to unlock new perspectives. To illustrate this idea, I wanted to find a clip of someone striking a piece of obsidian in just the sweet spot to open and reveal its hidden facets. Unsuccessfully searching on the internet, I happened upon a rich seam of online community featuring Minecraft in which obsidian has some currency. Regarded obliquely, I tapped the stone and revealed new perspectives of online communities I wasn’t expecting to find.

The Mooc’s experiential approach encouraged strategies for becoming an active observer. This active, first hand methodology was a really successful way of introducing philosophical ideas before reading about such concepts. They included the notion of the paucity of our imagination compared to the transcendancy of real objects – in other words how the latter reveal infinitely more to us as we continue to look at them than do objects in our imagination which resist closer scrutiny. Or, as an another example, how our perception of phenomenon goes beyond the sensory to include the extra- and super-sensory. The experiential activities blurred the on- and offline boundaries, happily complementing thoughts of the imaginary and the real, the actual and the superimposed, the embodied and the virtual experience.

As I tweeted whilst following the mooc, I found it difficult to untangle the subject of the course from my role as documenter, a problem I think this commentary reflects. I still have a long way to go on my trip!


Adams, C. et al. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: the tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35(2), pp.1–15.

Hine, C. (2000). The virtual objects of ethnography, chapter 3 of Virtual ethnography. London: Sage. pp41-66

Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Chapter 2 ‘Understanding Culture Online’, Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage. pp. 21-40.

13 thoughts on “Micro netnography

  1. Daniel Jackson-Yang

    Two quotes from your post that I think should be placed in parallel as they reveal an interesting subjective experience (much in the same way the students of your MOOC worked in parallel to explore their own subjectivities):

    “I was not wholly successful in this, not least because of my poor command of iMovie!”

    “As much or as little as we shape our software, it shapes us with its inbuilt unfreedoms and control.”

    1. chills Post author

      That’s really interesting, I hadn’t put those together! In this case, I think it is the lack of time I’ve spent using iMovie that’s been more of a problem 🙂

  2. Daniel Jackson-Yang

    “Sartre’s exposition of ‘The Look’: how our consciousness of ourself as a ‘being-for-itself’ comes into existence when we are made suddenly aware that we have become the object of another’s consciousness – when we are observed.”

    Very interesting. I’ve not heard of this. There’s definitely connections to be made between this concept, the panopticon, social media, performativity and a surveillance society.

    Or we can just listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFrNsSnk8GM

  3. Daniel Jackson-Yang

    So yeah, I read your text and then watched the film. Thinking about subjectivity I notice how my perceptions of your nethnoraphic artefact are heavily influenced by your choice of soundtrack. It seems very consistent, pleasant and easy to consume which didn’t quite match my impression that you found experience a “tangle”. The soundtrack doesn’t really reflect the “othering” of the everyday that Hine suggests is the first principal of nethography.

    I was expecting a weirder, more fractured soundtrack. Off the top of my head, something like:

    Hine, C. (2000). The virtual objects of ethnography, chapter 3 of Virtual ethnography. London: Sage. pp41-66

    1. chills Post author

      You are right, but to tell the truth, I did have a better soundtrack with fades in and out to some strange sound effects for some of the sequences, but it got mangled up in the YouTube upload process and I had to cut my losses with time and just post it as is 🙁

      1. msleeman

        I watched your film first, and then read your text. Illuminating to think about how i saw it, relative to Daniel. Diachronic ordering structuring subjectivity. Also, it looked to me like your road trip moves from left-hand side of the road to right-hand side of the road – I liked that! And younger members of my brood liked the giraffes / elephant moment. That communicated well to all of us.
        On a more technical note, I’m interested in how you cut YouTube clips into iMovie – is that easily done / are there any copyright issues to be aware of?

        1. chills Post author

          Hi Matthew
          Thank you for your comments. I’m really glad you raised the YouTube clip point because it has been a concern. I just took a screen recording of the YouTube clip and incorporated it into the video. I looked to see if the original had any CC licensing, but it didn’t. I attributed it at the end, but because I felt uneasy about it (and still do), I made my YouTube clip Unlisted instead of Public. What do you think? Is that a huge no-no?! Another thing that prompted me to go ahead was the whole remix and repurpose aspect – I thought it would be ok because of that.

  4. jknox

    This is a really nicely put together artefact and video Cathy!

    I must say, I was thinking the same as Daniel after watching the video: that is seems to convey a rather pleasant, relaxed experience, but this sounds rather different when one reads about the philosophical concept you were grappling with!

    I really like the scene with the fruit! After reading your comments around the paucity of our imagination, compared to what can continue to be revealed in the object, this scene really made sense. I think it was really clever to convey your experience as subjective, and point of view road trip sequences depicted that well. It seemed that the ‘offline’ world around you was a lot more meaningful, for you, than the forums? Perhaps that says something about the subject matter of the MOOC, however, that you’re only really going to ‘get it’ by staring at fruit, much more than you will typing text into a forum post 😉

    ‘As much or as little as we shape our software, it shapes us with its inbuilt unfreedoms and control. It was interesting to note that the course leader himself voiced some frustration with the platform.’

    Interesting point. I wonder, did students then post their own thoughts on the technology, perhaps having been given ‘license’ from the tutor to do so?

    ‘This phenomenological perspective of time seems to fit neatly with Kozinets’ exposition of types of interaction in online communities where members become more committed when they “anticipate future interaction” and, perhaps, as they build up a store of remembered valued exchanges.’

    I thought this was a really great point, and a super link back to Kozinets’ work. Perhaps this is a way to frame the rapid decline of interaction sometimes seen in a MOOC?

    1. chills Post author

      Hi Jeremy,
      You are right that the forums were less meaningful than other aspects of the course, but I don’t think that need necessarily have been the case. There was a definite feeling that students were participating in the discussions because it was required and they therefore tended to post and move on as if they had ticked off something they had to do. This might have been avoided if the participation had not been forced by both the platform and the assessment structure, but equally possibly, that could have resulted in no discussion posts at all. There were one or two interesting posts in which a student would describe a point and another one clarify it and the course leader was always readily present on the forums to encourage this. The students didn’t comment on the platform at all in the discussions (as far as I know), even in response to the tutor’s articulated frustration.

  5. hmurphy

    Hello Cathy! Thank you for sharing this excellent video and commentary; I’ve watched the video twice now and it’s packed full of interesting ideas and expressive, imaginative ways of describing what sounds like a rather arduous and very complex experience.

    I was interested in comparing the three video clips of movement or cars – the first so quick, so intentional, so bright; the second in slow motion, with the snow, and with an entirely different perspective (a pedestrian perhaps); the third quick again, but quieter on the roads, less bright. I wondered if you might be making a point about the quick pace of the MOOC but also its rigidity in terms of the list of topics you showed. This, then this, then this, then this, ad infinitum, but without any real control over the order in which things are covered. The second clip, then, was a sign of both brake and break as you attempt to make sense of the complexity of the topic and of the micro-ethnography. The third clip of driving, then, perhaps the home strait.


    1. chills Post author

      Hi Helen
      Thank you for your incisive comments! I did want to convey the varying pace of the course by the different car clips, as well as a subjective experience by using the driver’s viewpoint. The snow clips were slow to denote working stuff out and also meant to evoke a different perspective as if observing oneself. I think, though, the clip would have been much more meaningful for course participants so it really failed as an ethnography.
      It was very clever of you to pick up on the linearity of the course which was a factor of the experience because the units were only ‘opened’ on certain dates, although they were not closed and students could go back, as I did, to look at things again. I didn’t think about break and brake though – I wish I had! I feel some screeching tyre sound effects coming on!

  6. hwalker

    A really thoughtful and (despite your self-deprecating comments) well-produced video Cathy. It offers a sense of how engaged you were with the subject matter of the MOOC if not, as your write-up suggests the ‘parallel’ MOOC community. Like Jeremy, I’m interested in your observations about the software and how it impacts on end-user experiences. How much of a blended approach to deliver and communications did the MOOC offer? Thanks for sharing your work with us.

    1. chills Post author

      Dear Helen
      Thank you for your kind comments. I think the software certainly had an impact on the course participants as I noted in my reply to Jeremy written just above ?. One of the things I liked best about the course was the tutor’s encouragement to experience philosophical ideas by examining, for example, objects on the desk in front of you. To me, this experiential approach blended the on and offline experience really well.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *